
GIass~hV£l 



Book 



"^ r n 



Vi 



AN APPEAL 

Eo 11)0 ^autiiti of all Hienomfnatfons, 



IN WHICH THE 

OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND MODE 

ARE DISCUSSED DY 

? HENRY SLICER, 

; Minister of the Methodist E. Church. 

^ IN AKSWER TO THE 

V. W. F. BROADDUS, OF VA. AND OTHERS. 
SECOND EDITION, REVISED AND ENLARGED, 

' WITH 

j A FURTHER APPEAL, 

IN ANSWER TO 

MR. BROADDUS'S LETTERS. 

I speak as unto wise men; judge ye what I say. 1 Cor. x, 15. 
Hearken to me; I also will show mine opinion. Job xxxii, 10. 



BALTIMORE: 
ARMSTRONG & BERRY. 

J. W. WOODS, PRINTER. 

1836. 









U 






RECOMMENDATIONS. 



Extract of a letter from the Rev. James Sewell, to the 
author, dated 

'^ Charleston, S. C, Jv.g. 6th, 1836. 

"I can have no hesitation in recommending your Appeal 
to my friends. Your plan of arranging and discussing the 
subject, is at once judicious and perspicuous.- Although, at 
times, you seem disposed to jolt your antagonist, it is be- 
cause you think he needs settlinsc upon the proper foundation . 
When he shall have answered all your logical and scriptural 
arguments, he will have the honor of doing that which, it 
strikes me, none of his brethren could have done for him; 
indeed, he will have the honor of doing that which cannot 
be done. If your rejoinder to Mr. B's letters, should be as 
successful as your appeal, you will have nothing to fear 
from the bar of an enlightened public. And, if I am not 
one of the most mistaken men in the world, our Baptist 
brethren, with Mr. B. at their head, will be secretly sorry 
for having provoked you to enter the contest. You have 
fairly gotten both under-holds of your opponent, and if he 
is not wrestled off his sophistical feet, he will be the world's 
wonder. One point will be gained. The unprejudiced 
will discover that the water cry of our mistaken friends, is 
not one of the most significant cries, in the church, after 
all. Send me a few copies of your book, when out. Like 
the "barley cake," I trust it will upset the whole host of 
Midian. I am yours. &c. 

JAMES SEWELL." 



Georgetown, D. C, 15th July, 1836. 
Rev. Henry Slicer, 

Dear Sir, — I have read your "Appeal" on the subject 
of infant baptism in answer to the Rev. Wm. F. Broaddus, 
with interest and profit. I think you have succeeded in bring- 
ing together many important facts, and presenting a strong ar- 



2 



gument in favor of what I have always loved and valued as 

nf?h?' A i"'"' ^""^ ^.u^^' "° ^^"^* ^^^t the circulation 
whi^ ;;^PPff' among he candid of all denominations, to 
whom It IS addressed, will do much to settle the waverin/ 
aiid strengthen and confirm those who have already professe^d 
their belief m the doctrine and practice you advocate^ 
There are stated some few things to which I, as a Preshii^ 
terian do not subscribe; these, however, do not in the lea'^t 
interfere with the general argument. 

I am, dear sir, truly yours, 

JOHN C. SMITH. 



Washington, D. C. August, 1836. 
Dear Sir— . 

«../S7'"^ read your Appeal on the subject of Christian 
Baptu7n we are fully prepared to say, that the work has 
afforded us both pleasure and profit. Having known many 
pious and well meaning persons to be thrown into great 
trouble and perplexity of mind by the ingenious ar^unients 
and positive assertions of the advocates for baptism bv im- 
mersion vve rejoice in the belief that your appeal, wherever 
It shall be carefully read, w^ill settle the doubtino- mind on 
the true notion of the important Gospel ordinance of which 
It treats We conceive that the subject is brought fullv into 
view and the arguments and objections of opponents fairlv 
stated, and most triumphantly answered and refuted We 
should be pleased to know that a copy of the appeal had 
found its way into the hands of all who wish to have correct 
opinions on the subject of Christian Baptism. 

^ JAMES M. HANSON, 

^, „ ^ WM. HAMILTON. 

Rev. H. Slicer. 



PREFACE 

TO THE FIRST EDITION 



When an individual presents himself in the char- 
acter of a controversial writer, a proper respect for 
public opinion requires, that, he state the reasons 
which have induced him to take such an attitude. 

The following pages have not been called forth 
by a fondness for writing — nor from the want of 
other important matters, with which to occupy the 
writer's time, — but by the solicitations of friends; 
and by what he at least considers an imperious call 
of duty, in view of the responsible relation which 
he sustains to the people of the Potomac District. 

There are times, when silence may become trea- 
son; and error, unexposed, may be passed off for 
valid truth. 

Until lately I have had no intention to write on 
the subject of 'Christian Baptism;' — and even now, 
I should not have written — so numerous and press- 



IV 

ing are my engagements — could I have persuaded 
myself that the circulation of any one of the excel- 
lent tracts that have been written by others, would 
have met our peculiar circumstances, in relation to 
this subject. 

With a district two hundred miles in length; con- 
taining six or seven thousand church members; with 
fifty-two large meetings to attend in about forty- 
eight weeks, and a travel of about 2,500 miles to 
perform in the same time; I considered that 1 had 
no time to devote to writing on this subject, without 
oppressing myself, or neglecting matters, having a 
prior claim upon me, and possessing a paramount 
importance. The former I have done, in view of 
the necessity laid upon me, in order to avoid the 
latter. At different times and in several places, at 
the instance of my friends, I have been led to make 
remarks on the obligation, mode, and subjects of 
baptism; and have administered the ordinance to 
hundreds of adults of all ages, from the sire of 70, 
down to the youth; as well as to infants. With the 
Baptists, as a people, we have had no quarrel, and 
for many of them we have had, and do still enter- 
tain, more than mere respect; and if our views, as 
expressed in the following pages, should be thought 



to be expressed in language too severe, we have only 
to say, that where we have seemed in the least caus- 
tic, it was because we considered the case required 
it. 

We have no interests that we have not laid at the 
feet of truth; and none that we are not willing to 
peril in its defence. And we wish it distinctly un- 
derstood, that we take the whole responsibility of 
the views herein expressed. 

We have not sought to make proselytes to a party; 
nor have we even interfered with any who have been 
awakened at Baptist meetings; we have acted solely 
on the defensive, in order to save our people from 
perplexity, and prevent others from "bereaving us 
of our children." 

Some eighteen months ago, I found a pamphlet 
circulating in the community, written by Elder W. 
F. Broaddus, entitled, "Strictures on Mr. DiefFen- 
bacher's doctrine of water baptism, infant baptism," 
&;c. 

I read it, and found a good deal of ridicule and 
sophistry employed against those who hold infant 
baptism, and baptism by sprinkling or pouring. I 
took no public notice of it, until the tenth day of 
last November, when at Upperville, Va., by request. 



VI 

I delivered an argument on baptism, in which 1 re- 
plied to all the matter contained in the strictures 
which I thought entitled to notice; but, lest any of- 
fence should be taken, I purposely avoided the men- 
tion of Mr. B's name. 

After I had administered the ordinance to twenty- 
three adults and some infants, as I preferred to dis- 
cuss the subject publicly, I made a general offer to 
debate the matter with any gentleman, minister 
or layman, within the bounds of my district, at any 
time and place, which might be appointed for that 
purpose. A Baptist minister present, declined the 
offer publicly, in the presence of about one thousand 
persons. Mr. Broaddus knew of what had passed, 
but did not see proper to accept the ofi'er. 

He, however, preached a sermon on the same sub- 
ject in the same village about three weeks after- 
wards, which sermon he published after the lapse of 
about four or five months. I accidentally heard of 
his intention to preach, two days before the time, 
and that a rumor, or report was in circulation 
through the neighborhood, by his friends, that I was 
expected to be present on the occasion. I wrote 
immediately to Upperville, informing my friends 
that I had received no notice of the appointment 



Vll 

from Mr. B , and in the letter renewed the offer 

to debate the matter, which letter was handed him, 
by a friend of mine, before he preached. 

About three days after he delivered that sermon, 
I received a letter from him, requesting me to pub- 
lish my sermon, and very kindly offering to review 
it, in case I should publish; and offered as an induce- 
ment to me, the following language: "Controversies, 
when properly conducted, must always do good." 

I took no notice of the letter, because I consider- 
ed it a fair decline of my offer; and because I have 
always believed, that the subject could be brought 
home to those who are least informed on the sub- 
ject, (and of consequence most liable to be misled,) 
better by an oral, than a written argument, and at 
less expense to the community. In his 'Note to the 
reader,' and in the commencement of his sermon, 
he has used my name, and informs the reader that 
his discourse was occasioned 'by the excitement 
which my sermon 'produced in the village and neigh- 
borhood,' and that I had made "an attempt to prove 
that infant sprinkling was an ordinance of the New 
Testament." 

The candid reader will be able to judge how far 
I have succeeded in the 'attempt' in the following 



VUl 

pages. I think it very likely that the fifty-nine 
adults baptized by pouring in that place and its vi- 
cinity, within the ^^w weeks previous, gave that 
gentleman more uneasiness, than the 'atteinpV at 
proving "infant sprinkling." 

He takes for granted, that he is right in his "un- 
derstanding and practice" of the ordinance — and 
that / am wrong, — and he sets out to 'counteract 
the wrong impressions'' that I may have made. — 
This looks a little like begging the question. 

As Mr. B. was so kind as to offer to be reviewer 
for me, and was so kind as to write ''strictures" for 
Mr. D. I suppose, he, least of all, will complain of my 
performing the like kind office for him; as one 'good 
turn deserves another' — and I accept on his part the 
will for the deed» 

If he should think proper to write again, and 
should produce any arguments that I have not re- 
plied to, in these pages, I shall answer him in some 
way. But I give the reader notice that / shall not 
write again, to answer arguments, or sophistry, that 
I have already replied to. 

In the discussion I have (so far as I knew them) 
taken up all the arguments used by the Baptists, and 



IX 

have not confined myself to Mr. B's "sermon," and 
"strictures" alone. 

While I am fully convinced that the Baptists, as 
a denomination, had their rise in Germany in 1521 
or '22, under Nicholas Stork, Muntzer, John of 
Ley den, Knipperdoling, and others, I have forborne 
giving an account of them, as it is found in Robin- 
son's Charles the V, and in a view of All Religions, 
by Ross, published in London, 1664; as I know the 
matter to be very offensive to our Baptist friends; 
also believing it to be unrighteous to attribute the 
'iniquities of the fathers to the children.' Although 
Mr. B. has labored hard to establish the charge of 
heresy against the founder of Methodism, in the 
matter of Baptismal regeneration^ a doctrine which 
he must have known that wise and good man no 
more held than he believed that "Thomas Stork 
held communion with God, by means of an angel," 
yet I will not retaliate by recounting the doctrines 
and practices of the German Anabaptists. 

Here I take leave of this subject, praying that 
God may keep us from the by-ways of error, and 
lead us into the way of truth. 

HENRY SLICER. 

Alexandria^ Oct. 7, 1835. 



PREFACE 

TO THE SECOND EDITION. 



When the Appeal was first put to press, the au- 
thor was not aware that the demand for the work 
would be more than to justify the issuing of a small 
edition; accordingly, a thousand copies were issued, 
nearly all of which were disposed of in a few weeks, 
and another edition was demanded, with a request 
that it should be enlarged in one or two parts. 

The reception with which it met, from the 
candid and intelligent of different denominations, 
not excepting the Baptists, (for I never heard of its 
giving much offence to any one except Mr. B.) and 
the assurances of its usefulness which reached me 
from different parts of the country, convinced me of 
the propriety of revising and enlarging the work, 
and publishing a second edition. But as I wished 
to know what course Mr. Broaddus would take in the 
matter, it was judged best to defer the publication 



Xll 

of a future edition, until he should either reply, or 
decline any farther controversy on the subject. 
After waiting some time for an answer, I learned, 
through a friend, that he would reply about Christ- 
mas; I looked in vain to that period for an answer, 
for it passed, and also the long month of January, 
and the cold mouth of February, and the winds of 
March, and the showers of April, all passed, and no 
answer came; and in the month of June, while I 
was just about to conclude that Mr. B. had aban- 
doned the idea of answering, a friend informed me 
that the reply was then in press. I then began to 
reason in my own mind, in order, if possible, to find 
out what could have detained the answer for seven 
long months, and upon reflection I recollected that 
the Upperville sermon, although delivered the Sab- 
bath before winter, was not issued from the press 
until the ice and snow of the cold season had all 
melted, and the singing of birds was heard in the 
land; and what makes this the more remarkable, is, 
the fact that his note to the reader is dated Dec'r, 
1834: — has this all been the result of accident? or 
does not Mr. Broaddus know that an argument for 
immersion stands but little chance of exerting a 
proselyting influence in mid-winter? But be this as 



Xlll 

it may, one would think that if "he found (as he 
says he did) that my bold assertions were likely to 
pass for sound argument with some, who lacked 
either capacity or leisure to examine for themselves; 
while the serious imputations I had cast upon his 
motives, were likely to aw^aken suspicions in a com- 
munity but little acquainted with him, unfavorable 
to his reputation;'' surely he should have hastened 
to the rescue of his favorite theory, from the hands of 
those 'bold assertions' and from those 'who lacked ca- 
pacity or leisure to examine for themselves,' and es- 
pecially to have silenced all 'suspicion unfavorable to 
his reputation;' and more especially, "as he soon 
found that some of my readers were inclined to attri- 
bute his silence to a consciousness of guilt," page 59. 
And yet strange to tell, this gentleman defers his 
answer for seven months. Perhaps he thought that 
the impression that my 'hold assertions^^ made last 
fall with regard to the ordinance, would, with the 
aid of a little time, become erased from the minds 
of the good people of Virginia, who were destitute 
of 'capacity or leisure to examine for themselves' — 
and that he could repeat over the arguments, I will 
not say 'bold assertions,' of his strictures and ser- 
mon, and utter his complaints long and loud, about 



XIV 

being 'misquoted, 'misrepresented,' his 'motives 
impugned,' 'personal defamation,' &;c. &c. and thus 
hide himself in the smoke of his own raising. And 
if he did not succeed in slaying 'Goliath,' he would 
at least show the community, that 

"Although vanquished, he can argue still." 

I promised the candid reader not to answer 'argu- 
ments or sophistry that I had already replied to.' 
I shall, in a Further Appeal, however, take such no- 
tice of Mr. B's twenty-one letters, as I may think 
them entitled to. 

I confess I expected when I wrote, that Mr. B. 
would reply, for I knew that those who have vanity 
enough to compare themselves to the warrior David, 
page 42, would make a show of fight, although 
there might be, in reality, neither a sling in his 
hand, nor a -smooth stone left in ihe shepherd's bag;'' 
they would fancy too, that they heard the death- 
groan of the giant, and that they had given his 
head to the host of Israel, and his carcase to the 
fowls of heaven — to the vultures of course. 

But in all seriousness, (speaking without a figure,) 
I was surprised that the gentleman should show so 
much morbid sensibility, and that he should take up 
so much of his letters in attempts to excite the sym- 



XV 

pathy of the public for the much injured man* 
Could not the candid reader judge, whether my 
weapons were those of 'personal defamation' and 
'sarcasvi,^ or those of scriptural argument, and 
sober reason? Did Mr. B. fear that the candid 
reader had not 'capacity' to see that 1 was 'ahnost 
a stranger to the use of all weapons, except 'sar- 
casm and pe7*sonal defamation,'^ that it became ne- 
cessary for him in his 'note to the reader,' to inform 
him of it? I sought, (as far as the nature of the 
case would admit,) to use 'soft words'* and 'hard ar^ 
guments.^ If, however, 1 had known that Mr. B. 
was 'a man of extra-' ordinary sensibility,^ I might 
have used 'soft arguments^ and 'hard words,'' which 
might have been more acceptable to the gentleman 
on several accounts, for certainly the intelligent 
reader will see that Mr. B. is no novice in those at 
the present, and with a little more practice, he 
might become an adept, both in the use of 'soft 
arguments'^ and 'hard words ' 

But I will not rail, but leave the gentleman to di- 
gest his own spleen. 

I shall not promise to demonstrate any thing, 
either in regard to my own innocency, or the good- 
ness of my cause, I shall leave to the candid reader 



XVI 

the task of making up a judgment for himself, both 
with regard to the subject and the writer. It may 
have been as well for Mr. B. to have put a promise 
in his hioie to the reader'^ that he will demonstrate 
his 'own innocency,' and that my 'views of bap- 
tism are altogether without foundation in the word 
of God' — as it is possible many of his readers may 
not be able to see the demonstration of either^ in 
the body of his work. 

Having carefully read Mr. B's letters, I am more 
than ever convinced that the views of baptism held 
by our baptist friends, cannot be maintained. 

All I ask of you, intelligent reader, is a candid 
examination of this revised and enlarged 'Appeal,' 
with the 'Further Appeal,' and I shall have no 
anxiety for the issue. 'I speak as unto wise men — 
judge ye what I say.' 

HENRY SLICER. 

Georgetoivn, D. C Jidyj 1836. 



BAPTISM. 



In calling public attention to the subject of Chris- 
tian Baptism, we wish to declare plainly and fully, 
our views, without intending to offend any; and not 
expecting to give ofience to the liberal and candid, 
who, while they claim the right to think, and ac- 
cording to their best light entertain and express 
their opinions, accord to others cordially, the same 
which they claim for themselves. 

In the arguments which we may adduce on the 
subject, it is not our design so much to prove that 
others are not right, as to prove that we are not 
wrong. 

And if when we have gone through the argu- 
ment, we shall have failed to convince you that ours 
is the 'more excellent way,' we shall not think you 
any the worse Christians, unless in the spirit of 
bigotry you should unchristian others, who may not 
agree with you in their doctrines, and usages. For 
we conceive, that no views of doctrine, or of the or- 



18 

dinances, however correct, can save any man, unless 
he be spiritually regenerated. For "neither circum- 
cision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a 
new creature^ 

Many who have been as orthodox as an apostle, 
and have received the rite of baptism, have proved 
themselves to be but "baptized infidels, washed to 
fouler stains." 

Having said thus much, we shall proceed to speak, 
First, of the Obligation and Perpetuity — 
Secondly, of the Subjects — 
And thirdly, of the Mode of Baptism. 

The Obliga^tiox and Perpetuity of Christian 

Baptism. 

On this part of the subject, we and our Baptist 
friends have no controversy — as we agree alike to 
assert, and maintain the obligation of the ordinance. 
But there have been many, bearing the name of 
Christ, who look upon the subject with indifference, 
and others who argue against it, saying, that it is a 
'carnal ordinance,^ and ought long since to have be- 
come extinct in the church of Christ. And in sup- 
port of their views they adduce severarpassages of 
scripture, and maintain that the baptism of the spirit 



19 

supersedes the necessity of water baptism. The 
views of such have grown, in part, out of the fact that 
our Baptist friends generally have confounded Chris- 
tian baptism with the baptism of John, whereas the 
two should be considered entirely distinct^ as we 
hope to be able to show hereafter. The two passages 
on which such as deny the obligation of baptism main- 
ly rely, are to be found, John iii, 30, — "Ue must in- 
crease^ but Imust decrease,^^ and 1 Cor. i, 17, — "JPor 
Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gos- 
peL^^ They conclude from the passage in John, that 
as he was to decrease as Christ increased, therefore 
baptism ought to have ceased in the church centuries 
since. The conclusion is good from the premises, but 
the premises are false, and the conclusion is therefore 
good for nothing; for in the same chapter you will 
find John's disciples informing him that Christ was 
baptizing, and all men were flocking to him; and 
John said 'I am not the Christ,' 'I came to bear 
witness of him.' 'He must increase, I must de- 
crease,' consequently we hear nothing of John's bap- 
tism after he was beheaded, only that St. Paul re- 
baptized some at Ephesus, who had previously re- 
ceived John's baptism. See Acts xix, 1 to 7. John 

received a temporary commission to herald the ap- 
3* 



20 

proach of the Messiah, and his kingdom; and bap- 
tizing the people with the baptism of repentance, 
taught them to beheve on him who was to come; — 
i. e. en Christ Jesus. And so little were the dis- 
ciples at Ephesus acquainted with Christianity in 
its doctrines or spirit, that they had not so much as 
heard whether there was any Holy Ghost. 

We request you to refer to the passage and read 
it attentively, as we shall have occasion to quote it 
again in the course of the argument. The view we 
have given of John's baptism, we are happy to find, 
supported by that able and distinguished minister of 
the Baptist church, Robert Hall, of England — See 
his Works, vol. 1st, page 372 — His words are — 
"No rite celebrated during the ministry of John, is 
entitled to a place among Christian sacraments.'' 
It is to be regretted, however, that most of his less 
intelligent brethren, differ with Mr. Hall in opinion. 
Some of them have maintained from the pulpit, and 
others from the press, that John's was Christian 
baptism. On this point the Rev. Mr. Broaddus 
seems not as yet, to have made up an opinion. See 
Sermon, page 34. 

The other passage (quoted from Corinthians) will 
be found upon examination, not to weigh against the 



21 

obligation of the oruinnnce. A faction had arisen 
in the church at Corinth, the apostle was informed 
that they had raised parties, and had used his name, 
and the names of his friends Apollos and Cephas. 
He writes them a severe letter, remonstrating 
against their course, and asks "Is Christ divided? 
Was Paul crucified for you ? or were ye baptized in 
the name of Paul ? I thank God that / baptized 
none of you, but Crispus and Gains:'' — And why ? 
he immediately assigns the reason, "Lest any should 
say that I had baptized in mine own name.'' — " For 
Christ sent me not to baptize," &c. (i.e.) my main, 
and most important business is to preach the gospel. 
He did baptize some as you learn from the context — 
and it is certain that he baptized others, in other 
places, as the twelve disciples at Ephesus, &:c. But 
as a wise master builder, he had learned to give to 
things severally, the importance due to them. 

Havinoj thus shown that these texts lie not ao^ainst 
the obligation of the ordinance, — we must remark, 
that as Christ gave a command to the apostles, 
after his resurrection, to disciple all nations, by bap- 
tizing and teaching them; with the promise to be 
with them to the end of the world; and as that com- 
mand has neither been revoked, nor complied witlr 



22 

tc its full extent, the obligation still rests upon the 
ministry to administer the rite, and upon the nations 
to submit to it. And futhermore, when the apos- 
tles went forth in obedience to the above command, 
whenever and wherever the word took effect upon 
the hearers, and they were willing to receive Christy 
the apostles dedicated them, if Jews, to Jesus, as 
the true Messiah, and, if Gentiles, to the true God — 
Father, Son and Holy Ghost. 

On the day of Pentecost, when the three thousand 
cried out "Men and brethren what shall we do?" — • 
(although in all probability many of them had been 
baptized by John;) Peter said, "repent and be bap- 
tized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, 
for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the 
gift of the Holy Ghost." 

And when Peter opened the kingdom of heaven 
to the Gentiles, in the house of Cornelius, as he had 
done to the Jews, on the day of Pentecost, while he 
was speaking, the Holy Ghost fell on the congrega- 
tion. Acts X, 44 to 48. "Then answered Peter, 
can any mMi forbid iDater^ that these should not be 
baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost, as 
well as we? And he commanded them to be bap- 
tized in the name of the Lord." Will any one in 



23 

view of this evidence still assert that water baptism 
is not obligatory. Those who maintain that the 
baptism of the spirit supersedes the necessity of^ 
the baptism of water, differ in judgment with the 
apostle Peler. And you, my reader, can judge 
whose opinion is entitled to most deference; the in- 
spired apostles, who received the command at the 
mouth of Christ, or one, or many at this late period, 
who are not under the infallible inspiration of the 
spiritj as is evident from the fact, that those who 
deny the obligation of baptism, disagree among them- 
selves, upon the most important points in Christian 
theology. 

It will be in vain to say, that the ordinance has 
been abused, by having too much stress laid upon it; 
for the abuse of a good thing, is not a valid argu- 
ment against its use. ''I speak as unto ivise me/?, 
judge ye what I say." 

On the Subjects of Baptism. 

JVe shall now pi^esent for your consideration^ and 
judgment^ our views in answer to the question^ who 
are the proper subjects of the ordinance ? 

Before I enter fully into this part of the subject, 
I beg your serious, and candid attention, to two im- 



24 

portant preliminary considerations, namely, that as 
there is but one true God, and one true faith, so this 
true God, has never had more than one church in 
the world, from the day that pious Abel by faith 
offered an acceptable sacrifice, to the present hour. 
I am aware that this principle has been disputed, 
but I take my firm stand upon the truth of God, and 
shall maintain this view, without fear of successful 
contradiction. In the sermon of Mr. B, page 14, he 
says, "The truth is, tJiei'c never was a visible church 
of Christ on earth, until he came and established it 
himself." The7^e was a visible Church of Christ be- 
fore his coming as really, as there has been since; as 
is evident from Acts vii, 38 — "This is he that was in 
the CHURCH in the wilderness, with the angel," 
— compared with Exodus xxiii, 20, 21 — "Behold 
I send an angel before thee, &c., provoke him not, 
for he will not pardon your transgressions,'' — com- 
pared with 1 Cor. X, 4 and 9 — "And did all drink 
the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spir- 
itual rock that followed them; and that rock was 
Christ," "Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of 
them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents." 
It is clear from these passages, 1st, that God had a 
church in the wilderness; 2d, that the angel spoken 



25 

of as having power to pardon sin, was Christ; Sd, 
that he was ivith the church; 4th, that him they 
tempted, and fell under his retributive administra- 
tion. 

In all the scriptures of the Old, and New Testa- 
ments, the province of reading men's hearts, is as- 
cribed to God alone, and consequently, he alone can 
tell with infallible certainty, v/iio are, and who are 
not, members of the invisible church of God. But, 
so far as man can judge from those actions which 
are an index to the hearts of men, we should con- 
clude that such as Zachariah and Elizabeth, Simeon 
and Anna, under the Jewish economy, were really 
members, constituting a visible church; especially as 
we have the testimony of God, to their guileless, and 
scriptural piety. If Mr. B. means to say, that no 
church is a visible church, that has unworthy mem- 
bers in it, then indeed, there never was a visible 
church of Christ on earth, even in the brightest pe- 
riod of the church's history. Was the church in the 
days of the Apostles a visible church of Christ, any 
more than the Jewish church had been, when among 
the baptized were seen Judas, Demas, Simon Magus, 
and others? But if Mr. B. means to say that the 
church of God and the church of Christ were two^ 



26 

then we ask how he can mamtain such a view, with- 
out denying the unity of the Godhead, or the essen^ 
tial divinity of Christ. There was one church pur- 
chased by the blood of Christ,— ilcts xx, 38 — 
*' Feed the church of God, which he (Christ, the 
true God) hath purchased with his own blood*'' 
Which church was this? I answer the flock of God, 
embracing his people, in every age, and under every 
dispensation. 

Hence, Christ is called, '^a lamb slain from the 
foundation of the world.'' See Rev. vii, 9, 16; xiii, 
8. This church is sometimes called "a temple" or 
^'building," then, Christ is the "corner stone." 
''The foundation." Eph. ii, 20, and 1 Cor. iii, 11. 
And we learn from Isaiali, the prophet, who wrote 
seven hundred years before the opening of the gos- 
pel dispensation, that this "tried stone," this "pre- 
cious corner stone,'^ was laid in Zion for a founda- 
tion — Isaiah xxviii, 16. This is "the stone, elect, 
precious," on whom whosoever believed, was not 
confounded. 1 Peter ii, 6. 

This church is again called "a flock'' or "sheep- 
fold" — ^'He shall feed his flock like a shepherd, and 
carry the lambs in his bosom.'' In Jeremiah xxiii, 1 
to 6, this flock is spoken of, and comforted with the 



27 

promise of better days, under pastors that should 
care for them, and feed them. This prediction was 
fulfilled in the days of the Messiah. And in direct 
allusion to this, and similar passages, he said, '' I 
lay down my life for the sheep:" "other sheep T 
have w^iich are not of this (Jewish) fold, them must 
I bring, and there shall be one fold and one shep- 
herd." You hear one of those sheep saying, under 
a former dispensation, "The Lord is my shepherd, 
I shall not want." See Psalm xxii, 1, 2, 3. David's 
Lord was Christ, see Psalm ex, 1, and Matt, xxii, 
44,-^again the church is called a "family;" — one 
family, not two or more. See Eph. iii, 15, — "Of 
whom the whole family, in heaven and earth is 
named. Sectarian bigotry, either among Jews or 
Christians, would like to make partitions in this 
building of God, — or divisions in this immense fam- 
ily; but the liberal minded Paul, who had com- 
pleted his education in the "third heaven," had 
learned, that the true God had but one family in the 
universe. In the 11th chap, of Hebrews, we have 
the names of some of the most distino;uished mem- 
bers of this family, from the first martyr Abel, 
down to the venerable and faithful Samuel, who from 

a child of three years old, had been actively 
4 



28 

and publicly engaged in the service of this 
church. 

Jesus, speaking of the Gentiles, says, "They shall 
come from the east and the west, and shall sit down 
with Abraham, Isaac and the prophets in the king- 
dom of God." Whether you interpret the phrase 
"kingdom of God'' to mean that part of the family 
which is on earth, or that part which is in heaven, 
either will answer our purpose. We thank God 
"Our father who" is "in heaven," that he has but 
one family, and has constituted of angels and re 
deemed men, one vast brotherhood. See Rev. vii, 
9 to 17. 

Again, the church is called in Rom. xi, 24, — "A 
good olive tree.'' And although some of the 
branches were broken off, for unbelief, the olive was 
never rooted up; but on that stock the Gentiles were 
grafted, and the apostles informed the Jews, that 
they should be grafted in again, if they abode not in 
unbelief. We admit, there were, from time to time, 
circumstantial differences in the church of God, un- 
der different dispensations, but her identity has 
been always maintained. She has been, and still is, 
substantially the same. She was once a family 
church, then a national church, and subsequently a 



29 

universal church. She once looked forth as the 
morning, was afterwards fair as the moon, and 
finally, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with 
banners. From the dawn of her mornino:, to her 
meridian splendor, she leaned upon her beloved 
"Christ." The furniture of this temple has been 
altered. Some of the branches of this olive tree 
broken off. But the temple's beauty is not marred. 
And the "root and fatness of the olive tree" still 
remain. 

In conchision,we remark, from the time the cove- 
nant of mercy was intimated to Adam and Eve, in 
the garden of Eden, down to the call of Abraham, 
and to the confirming of that covenant with him, see 
Gen. xvii, 2, and Gal. iii, 17, — and from that to the 
giving of the law 430 years after; and from that to 
the coming of Christ; and from his advent until 
now, men have been justified, sanctified, and for ever 
saved, in the same way^and under the auspices of the 
same covenant of mercy. For this is the ''covenant 
confirmed of God in Christ,^'' Gal. iii, 13 to 20. — = 
"He was made a curse for us," "that the blessing 
of Abraham might come on the Gentiles, throuo^h 
Jesus Christ," that we might receive "the promise 
of the spirit through faith," Our Baptist friends 



30 

contend that this covenant, of which circumcision 
was the sign and seal, contained only the grant of 
the earthly Canaan to the natural seed of Abraham. 
But surely, the apostle understood the matter in an 
entirely different sense, for he says, the blessing of 
Abraham was to come on the Gentiles, and that they 
were to receive the promise of the spirit, by faith. 
This is precisely what Peter refers to, (i. e.) "the 
promise of the spirit,'' when on the day of Pente- 
cost, referring to the charter of the gospel church, 
he says: "the promise is unto you, and to your 
children,'' &;c. Acts ii, 38 and 39. And in giving 
an account of the falling of the spirit on Cornelius 
and his family, he says. Acts xi, 17. "Forasmuch 
then, as God gave them (the Gentiles) the like gift, 
as he did unto us, (Jews,) who believed on the Lord 
Jesus Christ; what was I, that 1 could withstand 
God?" Here you see in Christ, according to the 
language of the covenant, all the families of the 
earth were to be blessed. 

St. Paul says: "The scriptures foreseeing that 
God would justify the heathen through faith, preach- 
ed before the Gospel unto Abraham." Gal. iii, 8. 
This promise, referred to above, the promise of 
mercy and grace, "I will be a God to thee and to thy 



31 

seed,'' was ordained in the hands of a mediator; and 
when this mediator appeared, we find that a com- 
pany of Jewish shepherds, and a company of Gen- 
tile philosophers, aUke present themselves at his 
shrine, as the representatives of the two great divi- 
sions of the family of man; as the "first fruits of 
the fast coming harvest" of the world to Christ. 

When Jesus looked over the Samaritan people, 
he said to the apostles^ "Say not three months and 
then cometh harvest, lift up your eyes and look on 
the fields, for they are white already to harvest." 
"Other men (patriarchs and prophets) have labored 
and ye have entered into their labors." John iv, 35, 
38. The church has always been "God's hus- 
bandry" as well as "God's building," and the fields 
had been under culture for 4000 years. Although 
the state of morals in the visible church at the com- 
ing of Christ was greatly sunken, Jesus said to his 
disciples, "The scribes and pharisees sit in Moses's 
seat, therefore, whatsoever they command you, that 
observe and do, but do ye not according to their 
worlcs, for they say, and do not." And of this visi- 
ble church, John the Baptist and Jesus were both 
members, as also his apostles. For in addition to 

the observance of the right of circumcision, they 

4# 



32 

kept the passover, up to the eve of Christ's appre- 
hension and crucifixion. The true state of the case 
seems to be this. When the Messiah, "the promis- 
ed seed," the mediator of the (Abrahamic) co2?e- 
nant^'' "the minister of the true tabernacle," ap- 
peared and presented his claims, those of the visible 
church, who admitted his Messiahship, and were 
gathered to the Shiloh, were continued in the true 
and good olive, and those who rejected him, were 
broken off. "The children of the visible kingdom 
were cast out, the rite of circumcision gave way to 
the rite of baptism and the j^assoijer was superseded 
by the institution of the Lord's supper. See 1 Cor. 
V, 7. Our Baptist friends admit this so far as adults 
are concerned. It is true however, that Mr. B. in 
his Strictures, pages 4 and 5, intimates very strongly 
that circumcision has never been discontinued by an 
"express command.'' His words are "Why not 
both circumcize and baptize them? You have never 
had any 'express command^ to discontinue the one, 
and practice the other." Now, candid reader, al- 
though Mr. B. may not be able to see in God's word 
any passage abrogating circumcision, yet you will 
see one in which it is s^t forth if you will look at 
Acts XV, 1, 2, 5, 10, 28j 29. And we learn from 



33 

Acts xvi, 4, That Paul, Silas, and Timotheus, went 
through the churches, deUverhig the decrees to them 
on this suhject; and the decree on the 'discontinuing 
of circumcision' was the result of the judgment of a 
council of apostles and elders, confirmed by the 
Holy Ghost. — See the passage above referred to. 

And in confirmation of the fact, that baptism came 
in the place of circumcision, the Apostle calls bap- 
tism the "circumcision of Christ." Colos. ii, 11, 12, 
And I am supported in this opinion by one of Mr. 
B's witnesses, *The great Whitby, (as he calls him, 
—and I suppose if the testimony of the iviiness is 
good for Mr, B,, his testimony will be as good for 
me against Mr. B. — Let us hear the witness,) says, 
^'The apostle speaking here of the circumcision made 
without hands, and of the circumcision made in hap- 
tism, and consisting in the putting off the sins of the 
flesh, cannot, by the circumcision of Christ, mean his 
own personal circumcision, which was made with 
hands, hut that which he hath instituted in the room 
of it, viz. baptism. That baptism, therefore, is a 
rite of initiation to the Christians as circumcision 
was to the Jew?s."— See Whitby on the place. 

Who doubts that circumcision was the initiating 
rite among the Jews, and in the church, from the 



34 

day when Abraham was ninety -nine, and Ishmael, 
thirteen years old. For as our Lord said, "Circum- 
cision was not of Moses, but of the fathers." And 
if baptism is not the initiating rite, the seal and sign 
of the covenant of mercy, the church, under the 
Gospel, has no initiatory rite. 

But Mr. B. page 17, supposes that "the coming 
of the promised seed, (the Messiah,) put an end, 
however, to the Abrahamic covenant, and conse- 
quently to all its ordinances, forever.'' Shocking! 
that men should be willing to disannul the only cov- 
enant of mercy and grace from God to man, a cov- 
enant that embraced the promise of Messiah, and the 
blessing of all nations through him; in order the 
more effectually to deprive unoffending infants of 
the rights which they had enjoyed unmolested for 
about 2000 years. — Under what covenant, pray, do 
such conclude themselves? "Christ was made a 
curse for us, that the blessing of Abraham, might 
come on us through faith." — How, then, I ask, can 
the covenant be done away, and its blessings still en- 
joyed by Jews and Gentiles? I hope it will not be 
said, that the blessing of Abraham is the possession 
of the earthly Canaan. God made two covenants 
with Abraham, one before the birth of Ishmael, see 



35 

Gen. XV5 7 — 21. In this was contained the grant of 
the earthly Canaan^ to his natural seed, through the 
hne of Isaac and Jacob. This covenant was ratified 
by the passing of a burning lamp, and a smoking 
furnace, between the pieces of slain beasts which 
Abram had provided, while a "horror of thick dark- 
ness fell upon Abram," emblematical, or typical, of 
the hard bondage which his natural seed should en- 
dure in Egypt. The metes and bounds of their in- 
heritance were distinctly marked out. This cove- 
nant received not its full accomplishment until the 
days of David. See Acts vii, 45, — 2 Sam. viii, 8, 
&c. and 2 Chron. ix, 26. 

About 14 years afterwards God changed the 
name of Abram, to that of Abraham; see Gen. xvii, 
5 — 27, and having said in regard to the first cove- 
nant, chap, xii, 2, 'I will make of thee a great na- 
tion,''^ he now says, chap, xviii, 4, 5, "Thou shalt be 
3, father of many nations." This last is called by 
way of eminence, '^The Covenant." Of this cov- 
enant, circumcision was the sign and seal. 

I ask the candid reader to put the statements of 
Mr. B. on the subject of this covenant, in contact 
with the testimony of Zacharias, the father of John 
the Baptist. When John was eight days old, and 



36 

they were about to perform upon the ^unconscious 
infanf the rite of circumcision— about to put upon 
him the seal of the Abrahamic covenant^ the 
tongue of Zacharias was loosed, and being filled with 
the Holy Ghost, he uttered the following language— 
'^Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he hath visited and 
redeemed his people. And hath raised up a horn of sal- 
vation^ for us in the house of his servant David; as he 
spake by the moidh of his holy prophets, which have been 
since the world began: that we should be saved from our 
enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; to per- 
form the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember 
his Holy Covenant; the oath which he sivare to our fa- 
ther Abraham, that he would grant unto us, that we being 
delivered out of the hand of our enemies, might serve him 
without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all 
the days of our life,^^ See Luke i, Q7 to 80. 

Do these words even intimate that the advent of 
the Mesaiah 'loould put an end to the Abrahamic 
covenantV as Mr. B. says above. And does Zach- 
arias celebrate the abolition of this covenant? Does 
he not rather bless G od for the manifestation of the 
'mercy promised^ and the bestowment of those im- 
portant blessings included in the Abrahamic cove- 
nant? To remember his holy covenant, as a cove- 
nant-keeping God, is to give to those who have 'tak- 



37 

en hold of his covenant' those immunities vouchsafed 
in this contract or stipulation. 

The intelligent reader will perceive that Zacha- 
rias never intimates that the possession of the earth- 
ly Canaan^ was any part of the blessings, embraced 
in the covenant of circumcision. The "mercyprom* 
ised to our fathers, embraced all 'spiritual blessings 
in Christ Jesus; and only embraced temporal good 
secondarily. 

The temporal advantages connected with circum- 
cision, were restricted to the seed of Abraham ac- 
cording to the flesh, through the line of Isaac. We 
read that '^ Abraham took Ishmael, his son, and all 
that were born in his house, and all that were bought 
with his money, every male of the family of Abra- 
ham, and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin, in 
the self-same day, as God had said unto him." The 
circumcision of these persons entailed upon them no 
right to the land of Canaan; nor did the circumcision 
of slaves in after times, procure them either civil 
liberty, or landed property; they must therefore have 
received some spiritual privileges, or they gained 
nothing by the rite. Mr. B. says, page 16 of his 
Sermon, '^We know that Esau and Ishmael, and 
others, descendants of Abraham^ were rejected from 



38 

the covenant of salvation by Jesus Christ. Then 
their circumcision was a solemn mockery." 

How can he know this, when, according to his 
own showing, the covenant of salvation was not of- 
fered to them, and the only covenant of which they 
knew any thing, was purely of a temporal nature? 
Hence he says, page 16 — ^'Every one of Abraham's 
natural descendants might have been sons of perdition, 
and yet all the ends proposed (by the covenant) 
might have been accomplished." Candid reader, 
can you credit such views? "1 speak as unto wise 
men, judge ye what I say." 

That Gentiles derived spiritual privileges from 
circumcision, is clearly evident from Isaiah Ivi, 6, 
7, "Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves 
to the Lord to serve him, — and taketh hold of my 
covenant; even them will I bring to my holy moun- 
tain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; 
their burnt offerings and sacrifices shall be accepted 
upon mine altar," &c. 

As the covenant is called the covenant of circum- 
cision, no uncircumcised person could take hold of it; 
nor was it permitted to any one, who had not re- 
ceived the sign of the covenant, to enter into the 
temple and engage in its sg,cred services. The per- 



39 

sons mentioned in the text therefore were circum- 
cised Gentiles, and all the immunities which they 
enjoyed, as here enumerated, were o^ di purely relig' 
ious nature. 

The apostle Paul, who was well acquainted with 
this whole subject, has spoken, we thmk, in a way 
calculated to settle the question, Rom. iii, 1, 2, 3,— 
"What PROFIT is there of circumcision?''— The 
answer is, — "Much every way; chiefly, because 
that unto them were committed the oracles of God.^"^ 
We hope our Baptist friends will not make so wide 
a mistake, as to say, that the oracles of Gody are the 
earthly Canaan. 

Although the Jews had temporal benefits as a na" 
tion, connected with circumcision, yet the rite wa» 
not instituted on that account. "Circumcision verily 
profteth.^ if thou keep the law; but if thou be a break- 
er of the law, thy circumcision is made wncircum- 
cision." Rom. ii, 25. Here again the profit of cir- 
cumcision is not made to consist in the enjoyment 
of temporal blessings; but in keeping the law, or or- 
acles of God. Surely, this did not regard the earthly 
Canaan. 

Mr. B. says, page 17 of his Sermon — "While he 
(that is Abraham,) was literally, the father of the 



40 

whole Jewish family, he was, spiritually, the father 
of none but believers, even among his own offspring: 
and now, as crrcumcision was enjoined upon all his 
natural seed, it follows of course, that the design of 
it was literal, and that its benefits were to be looked 
for in connexion with the literal import of the sev- 
eral promises which God had made to him: thus, 
those who were circumcised^ should be acknowledg- 
ed his natural descendants; should be protected by 
the arm of God, in the enjoyment of the privileges 
connected with all that arrangement, by which it 
was designed to keep them a separate nation; and 
finally should inherit the land of Canaan. A candid 
observer must perceive, that as the literal provisions 
of this covenant were confined to Abraham's natu- 
ral seed, the literal rites of the covenant must also 
be confined to that people.'' 

The statements made in this quotation are plainly 
and flatly contradicted by the facts in the case. The 
three hundred and eighteen men of Abraham's house 
who were circumcised, were they a part of his nat- 
ural seed? Gen. xiv, 14. And were those, and Ish- 
mael, and his seed, kept a separate nation? And 
did they finally inherit the land of Canaan? Again; 
were those servants acknoioledged his natural de- 



41 

scendants? Mr. B. says so. What say you candid 
reader? The idea that circumcision was designed 
only as a national badge, (the idea that is so confi- 
dently advanced by some of our Baptist teachers,) 
is contradicted by the facts connected with the ori- 
ginal institution of circumcision, as well as by the 
facts connected with the history of the institution. 
For if it was a national badge to tlie Jews, or de- 
scendants of Abraham by the line of Isaac and Jacob, 
it was equally so to the descendants of Abraham by 
the line of Ishmael and Esau. For the Ishmael- 
ites, Arabians and Saracens, all practiced the rite; 
and at this day, circumcision is the initiating rite to 
the Mahomedan as well as the Jew. 

How can that be a national badge to one nation^ 
that is practised by many nations? "I speak as 
unto wise men, judge ye what I say." 

Having shown, (as we trust,) in the foregoing ob- 
servations, the identity of the church, and that the 
covenant made with Abraham, (of which circumcis- 
ion was the sign and seal,) was the covenant of 
grace, intimated in Eden, to Adam, (v/hen his whole 
posterity were yet in his loins,) and fully made known 
under the gospel dispensation; the seed of the wo- 
man having now bruised the serpent's head, by his 



42 

crucifixion on the cross, having "been made a curse 
for us, that the 'blessing of Abraham,'' might come 
on all that believe, both Jews and Gentiles; that ac- 
cording to the stipulations of the covenant, he might 
be the 'father of many nationsf^'' we shall now 
proceed to show that, in this covenant, (as understood 
anciently,) the right of infant church membership 
was recognized. 

In proof that infants w^ere to be recognized as 
having membership in the family church, see Gen. 
xvii, 11; 12, 13, — "And ye shall circumcise the 
flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a token of the 
covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight 
days old, shall be circumcised among you, every 
male child in your generation; he that is born in 
the house, or bought with money of any stranger, 
which is not of thy seed. This was the original 
constitution of the church of the true God. The 
original charter of that "Jerusalem which is the 
mother of us all." Gal. iv, 26. And here the 
rights of 'unconscious babes'' are acknowledged. 

This charter was in force, observe, four hundred 
and thirty years before the giving of the law. And 
St. Paul says. Gal. iii, 17, — The law did not 
disannul the covenant which v/as confirmed of 



43 

God in Christ four hundred and thirty years be- 
fore. 

We see the covenant carried into effect in respect 
to children during the law. We quote in proof, 2 
Chron, xxxi, 14, 19. In this passage, brethren, 
wives, sons, daughters, and little ones^ are all men- 
tioned as entering into the house of the Lord. And 
this extended "through all the congregation," and 
we are told that Hezekiah in this arrano^ement of the 
congregation did that which was right and good be- 
fore the Lord his God. (v. 20.) Now we never 
heard it denied, that the Priests and Levites, entered 
not into the active and official services of the temple, 
until the age of thirty: we see this illustrated in the 
case of John the Baptist, who was of the tribe of 
Levi, and the family of Aaron. Yet we learn from 
the passage in Chron. that the 'little ones^ of three 
years old, entered into the 'house of the Lord,' and 
made a part of the congregation. 

This will throw light on that passage in Deut, 
xxix, 10, 13,— ''Ye stand this day all of you, before 
the Lord your God, 'your little ones,'* 6lc, to enter 
into covenant with the Lord your God," &c. Chil- 
dren of three years old, enter into covenant with 

God? yes, this is their own personal act. Nor are 

5* 



44 

these the only places where little ones are public 
characters; for Joshua in confirming, or renewing, 
the national covenant, on Mount Gerizim, "read 
all the words of the law, the blessings and curs- 
ings, according to all that is written in the book of 
the law," to the little ones — to children three years 
old. Josh, viii, 34, 35,— -"It is clear from the pas- 
sages adduced, that children of three years old were 
members of the national church; and engaged in the 
most sacred rites and solemn transactions, equally 
with their fathers. They were, no doubt, subject to 
the same preparatory purifications, and v/ere treated 
on the same ritual principles as their fathers." 

You find from 1 Sam., i, 22, 24, 28, and ii, 11,— 
That as soon as Hannah weaned Samuel, she 
brought him and lent him to the Lord, ^'And he 
ministered unto the Lord before Eli the Priest, being 
a child girded with a linen ephod.^"^ 

"Having shown that by the authority of God, in» 
fants were received into the covenant, and the 
church; that at three years of age they were public- 
ly recognized as members of the church, and per- 
sonally performed public acts of membership, it fol- 
lows, that the same divine authority which granted 
the right, must be shown to have cancelled it, be- 



45 

tore they can justly be deprived of it; and as no one 
pretends that God has prohibited the membership of in- 
fants under the Gospel^ the original grant must remain in 
fullforce:' 

We shall explain this part of the subject^ by an 
illustration or two. What is called in most of the 
states of this Union, the common law, is the law of 
the commonwealth, unless in the particular case, the 
common law has been repealed by express statute 
law. Hence it is sometimes a question in the courts, 
(which cannot be decided without an appeal,) wheth- 
er the case before the court is actionable at com- 
mon law, or whether it has been provided for by ex- 
press statute. Apply the matter. We find the 
right of infant church membership acknowledged in 
the Old Testament Scriptures, and in the church of 
God, for about two thousand years. We take their 
having had a title, as prima facia evidence, that 
they have a title stilh We look into the New Tes- 
tament, (which 1 consider the book of statute law 
for the church,) to see if there is any precept or pre- 
cedent, any ''Thus saith the Lord,'' for excluding in- 
fants; any abrogating statute; and we find none.-— - 
Take another case: There is now in Virginia, what 
is called a ^New Constitution;'' has any intelligent 



46 

citizen of the state, ever entertained an idea that this 
is any other, than the old constitution amended, by 
the authority of the state, vested in a convention of 
the citizens? Are not the privileges of the citizens 
precisely the same as under the old constitution, ex- 
cept so far, as that was amended by the direct ac- 
tion of the convention? Do not the strong features 
of the constitution remain the same? Were the 
terms of citizenship altered? or the essential privi- 
leges of the citizens infringed, by the partial amend- 
ments which are found to have been made? Or does 
any citizen infer other amendments, from the fact 
that he finds some plainly stated in the new charter 
or constitution? And if a question should arise in the 
state about implied privileges, or abridged rights, 
I suppose the gentleman who should indulge his 
imagination in the case, would be expected to furnish 
the burden of proof to support his inferences: he 
would not be allowed to change the old constitution 
by inference^ Apply the illustration to the case in 
hand. We call upon our Baptist friends to show, if 
tbey can, that there has taken place, under the New 
Testament dispensation, any essential change in the 
privileges of the church, or its members, Zion in- 
deed has ^enlarged her borders,' but her ^citizens^ 



47 

and their privileges are substantially the same. 
Here we might rest this branch of the argument, 
until those who exclude little children from the visi- 
ble family of God, should produce the statute of re- 
peal, by which their privileges are taken away. 
And till this be done, their rights may be safely 
rested upon the original grant. But we shall show 
not only that they were in the church formerly, but 
that Christ did not exclude them under the gospel 
economy. 

I am aware that many objections are urged 
against the administration of the ordinance to chil- 
dren; and when argument fails, sneers and ridicule 
are made to do what argument cannot, and scrip- 
ture will not, accomplish. It is called "infant 
sprinkling," "baby sprinkling.^' And again it is 
asked, "what do they know about the ordinance." 
Take one specimen of many, from Mr. Broaddus's 
Ser. p. 41, — "Thanks to the ingenuity of pope 
Stephen III. for an invention which secures the 
dear little creatures a place in heaven, without the 
inconvenience and danger of being plunged into a 
stream or pool of water." It is likely Mr. B. has a 
better opinion of the pope's close communion. 
Query — can he, or the pope, furnish a "Thus saith 



48 

the Lord," for excluding their brethren from the 
table of our comnnon Lord, and thus ^^making 
terms of communion that are not terms of salvation?^^ 
(see Robert Hall's Works.) Can Mr. B. furnish a 
"Thus saith the Lord," for the observance of the first 
day of the week, as the Christian Sabbath, instead 
of th8 seventh. Yet he, and the whole Christian 
world, so far as I know, (except the seventh-day 
Baptists,) agree to adopt it as the Sabbath. I sup- 
pose that can be managed without an express war- 
rant, and can be abundantly made out from prece- 
dent and inference, &c. &;c., as it does not stand in 
the way of "believers' baptism," or "baptism by im- 
mersion.'' We trust, candid reader, to furnish you 
evidence, with regard to the subjects of baptism, 
which shall not with you, (at least,) be set aside by 
irony or ridicule. 

Proselyte Baptis3i. 

That Baptism was in existence before the days 
of John the Baptist, seems evident from the writings 
of some of the Jews, especially as practised in the case 
of proselytes. Maimonides holds on this subject the 
following language: — "/?z all ages, when a heathen 
(or a stranger by nation) was willing to enter into 



49 

the covenant of Israel, and gather himself under the 
wings of the majesty of God, and take upon himself 
the yoke of the law, he must be first circumcised, and 
secondly baptized, and thirdly bring a sacrifice; 
or if the party were a woman^ then she must be first 
BAPTIZED, and secondly bring a sacrifice,'^'' — 
(Clarke's Commentary at the end of Mark.) And 
this fact does not rest on the authority of the Jews 
alone, for that the practice existed, and was known 
to the heathens, is clear from the words of Epicte- 
tus: (he is blaming those^ who assume the profes- 
sion of philosophy without acting up to it:) " Why 
do you call yourself a stoic? Why do you deceive 
the multitude? Why do you pretend to be a Greek? 
when you are a Jew, a Syrian, an Egyptian? And 
when we see one wavering, we are wont to say, this 
IS not a Jew, but acts one. But when he assumes 
the sentiments of one who hath been baptized and 
circumcised, then he both really is, and is called a 
Jew," &c. 

This practice then of the Jews — proselyte bap- 
tism — was so notorious to the heathens in Italy and 
Greece, that it furnished this philosopher with an 
object of comparison. Now, Epictetus lived to be 
very old— he is placed by Dr. Lardner, A. D. 109; 



50 

by Le Cierc, A. D. 1 04. He could not be less thatt 
sixty years of age when he wrote this: and he might 
obtain his information thirty or forty years earlier, 
which brings it up to the time of the apostles. 
Those who could think that the Jews could institute 
proselyte baptism^ at the very moment when the 
Christians were practising baptism as an initiatory 
rite, are not to be envied for the correctness of their 
judgment. The rite dates much earlier, probably 
many ages. I see no reason for disputing the asser* 
tion of Maimonides, notwithstanding Dr. Gill's rash 
and fallacious language on the subject. See Facts 
and Evidences as quoted by Watson — "This bap- 
tism of proselytes, as Dr. Lightfoot has fully shown, 
was a baptism of families^ and comprehended their 
infant child?'en; and the rite was a symbol of their 
being washed from the pollution of idolatry. Very 
different, indeed, in the extent of its import and 
office, was Ciiristian baptism to the Jewish bap- 
tism; nevertheless, this shows that the Jews were 
familiar with the rite as it extended to children, in 
cases of conversions from idolatry; and, as far at 
least as the converts from paganism to Christianity 
were concerned, they could not but understand 
Christian baptism to extend to the infant children of 



51 

Gentile proselytes, unless there had been, what we 
no where find in the discourses of Christ, or the 
writings of the apostles, an express exception of 
them.'' Watson on Baptism. 

It is objected to infant baptism, that infants are 
not capable of believing, and that as the apostles re- 
ceived a commission to baptize believers, Mark xvi, 
15, 16, therefore infants ought to be refused the or- 
dinance. This reason lies equally against infant 
salvation. An argument that proves too much, (as 
this does,) proves nothing, only that he who uses it 
is hard run for an argument. Let us look at this 
matter a moment. Infants cannot believe, therefore 
they ought not to be baptized. Infants cannot be- 
lieve, therefore they must be damned! For the text 
says — "He that believeth not shall be damned." Mr. 
B. says, p. 7, — I will engage to prove, that the com- 
mission actually excludes all unbelievers, whether 
unconscious infants or unbelieving adults." "Why 
tell them to baptize believers, if they were to bap- 
tize all men indiscriminately?" Why should he thus 
'beat the air?' He never heard an intelligent pedo- 
baptist say that "all men indiscriminately^'' are to be 
baptized. Why did he not quote Eph. ii, 8 — "By 
grace are ye saved through faith." But infants have 



52 

no faith; therefore they cannot be saved. Or this: 
*'If any will not work neither shall he eat." Chil- 
dren cannot work, therefore children should not be 
allowed to eat; and thus, by his reasoning, furnish 
a pretext for starving children according to the word 
of the apostle: — or he might have quoted: "The Lord 
Jesus shall be revealed from heaven in flaming fire, 
taking vengeance on them that know not God, and 
obey not the gospel"— infants know not God, and 
obey not the gospel, therefore^ he will take ven- 
geance on them, &;c. This is a kind of logic that 
puts more in the conclusion than is in the 'premises^ 
and is therefore a mere sophism. Again, baptism 
say they, "is the answer of a good conscience, infants 
cannot have the answer of a good conscience, there- 
fore they ought not to be baptized.'' Infants have 
not an evil conscience^ and that is more than can be 
said for many adults, w^ho have been baptized upon 
a profession of faith. They have innocency to re- 
commend them; while of Simon Magus, it is said, 
"Simon himself believed also; and when he was bap- 
tized," &c. We soon hear of this man who had re- 
ceived "believers' baptism,'' that his heart "i5 not 
right in the sight of God," "he is in the gall of bit- 
terness.^^ "Thou hast no part or lot in this matter/' 
And I conclude, Simon's was not a solitary case. 



53 

Mr. B's illustration on p. 7, I think very unfortu- 
nate; because there is an obvious want of analogy 
in the case. His words are, "suppose the governor 
of Virginia should send out recruiting officers, under 
a commission reading as follows, viz: Go through 
all the state and call upon all the inhabitants to en- 
list, in the army, giving them ten dollars each:'' he 
says "can any one suppose that unconscious infants 
are included among those who are to receive the 
ten dollars?" "The cases, {he says,) are precisely 
parallel." I suppose if infants were as capable of 
being soldiers, of bearing arms, and marching to the 
battle field, as they were anciently, and are now, of 
receiving the sign of the covenant, then indeed there 
might be some analogy; but until that is proved, we 
shall not allow Mr. B. to pass off assumption for 
proof, or sophistry for argument, or agree that he 
shall beg the question ivhere the proof is absent; as 
he has done more than once in his Strictures and 
Sermons. 

Again — the wording of the commission, in Matt, 
xxviii, 19, 20, — is urged against the propriety of ad- 
mitting children to baptism. We must always try 
to put ourselves in the circumstances of those who 
are addressed, and ask what woulcM3e the sense 



54 

which, in their peculiar circumstances^ we would 
have been likely to put upon the words. Dr. Watts 
remarks, that we often interpret the meaning of 
terms from early impressions, made upon us by local 
circumstances. — Hence says he, "A youth raised in 
sight of a parish church, that has a steeple on it, 
always associates in his mind, when he hears the 
word churchy the idea of a house with a steeple,^^ &;c. 
So when a man unacquainted with ancient customs, 
reads in the New Testament — "men do not put new 
wine into old bottles, lest the bottles burst," &;c. he 
is at a loss to understand the matter; for his mind 
directly recurs to the fact that glass bottles which 
have been tried, can be better trusted to stand the 
process of vinous fermentation, than new ones. But 
there was no difficulty in the minds of those to whom 
the words were spoken originally; because they 
knew of no bottles except those made of skins; which 
were always strongest when new. 

If the original commission to "disciple all nations, 
baptizing them,'' &;c., had been given to Mr. B. or 
any of his brethren of whom it may be said that "in- 
fant baptism is their soul's abhorrence,'' 1 frankly 
confess that it would have been necessary to have 
given such specific directions to admit the children 



55 

to the ordinance with the parents; and it might have 
been necessary, for aught 1 know, to have wrought 
a miracle to convince them, that there was any sense 
or justice in baptizing ''a babe,^^ — Christ might have 
found their prejudices as stubborn as were Peter's, who 
could not discover, that "God was no respecter of 
persons, until, while in a trance, a sheet was let 
down from heaven, and a voice said to him three 
times, kili and eat;"^"^ and the spirit said, "Go with 
the men (of Cornelius) doubting nothing, for I have 
sent them." Men's prejudices become very invet- 
erate, especially when they grow up under a system 
of exclasiveness. Hear Mr. B. page 27, for the 
proof of the above. "This species of tyranny over 
men's consciences (i. e. baptizing infants) would bet- 
ter suit the avowed doctrines of the church of Rome, 
than the professed liberality of Protestants. It 
would be difficult for me to perceive any thing more 
arbitrary in baptizing adults, at the point of the 
sword, than in taking unconscious infants, and im- 
posing upon them submission to a religious rite, 
with respect to which they have no volition or 
choice." 

The reader can perceive from this quotation, the 

views and feeling of Mr. B. with regard to infant 
6=* 



56 

baptism. I hesitate not to declare, that the doc- 
trine contained in the above, is calculated to subvert 
that order and subordination which is necessary to 
the well-being of society. For if it is tyr^lnny in 
the parent to dedicate the child to God in baptism, 
without the child's choice; then is the child's liberty 
taken away, if the parent requires it to observe the 
Christian Sabbath; or to go to the house of God, 
instead of the temple of an idol. The apostle con- 
sidered it not warring with the liberty of the gos- 
pel, or of the child to say. Col. iii, 20, ''Children 
obey your parents in all thing s^ And to require 
the parent, Eph. vi, 4, "To bring them up in the 
nurture and admonition of the Lord." If the judg- 
ment of the parent is to govern the child in its mi- 
nority, surely it cannot be a sore evil to the child, 
to be dedicated to God in baptism, before it is in 
structed and admonished in the Lord. Such 'Hyran 
nical parents'^ have the example of Abraham, the fa 
ther of the faithful to encourage them; and the ex 
ample of all the faithful from Abraham down to Jo 
seph and Mary, the reputed father and real mother 
of Jesus; for at eight days old, Jesus was solemnly 
recognized as a member of the church, by the rite of 
circumcision. Yet this, according to Mr. B. was 



57 

about as arbitrary, as if John, at tbe age of thirty, 
had baptized him "at the point of the sword.'' 

From the above it will appear how inveterate are 
the prejudices of this gentleman, against infant bap- 
tism. Hence I say, if he, and those who think and 
feel as he does on this subject, had received the com- 
mission Peter and his fellow apostles received, the 
directions to admit infants would, (of necessity,) have 
been very definite. But as it was, the commission 
was put into the hands of Jews, who had never known 
a church that did not admit, and maintain, the right 
of infant church membership. They, of course, 
would so understand the commission, as to admit the 
children with their parents, as was always the case 
when Gentiles were proselyted to the Jewish relig- 
ion. Being well acquainted with this practice, they 
would admit the children unless forbidden to do so. 
Peter and his brethren had never learned to think 
of a church that excluded children from member- 
ship, and of course would not attempt to form a 
church upon a new models unless specifically direct- 
ed so to do, Jewish children were called the "disci, 
pies of Moses,'' — and when the commission said 
'Go and disciple all nations, baptizing them and 
teaching them," drc. they would make disciples 



58 

of adults and their children, as the Jewish Missiona- 
ries had been accustomed to do from the beginning. 
They who valued themselves upon being the children 
of Abraham, would not reject the infant children of 
the followers of Abraham's faith. "If ye be Chrisfs, 
then are ye Abraham'' s seed^ and heirs according to 
the promise."— St. Paul. 

It is objected farther, if they are admitted to bap- 
tism, on the same ground, they ought to be admit- 
ted to the sacrament of the Lord's supper. This ob- 
jection is more specious than valid. It is evident 
to all who reflect, that there is a manifest difference 
existing in the two ordinances, baptism and the 
Lord''s supper, — as is obvious from the scriptures, 
and from the practice of the Baptists themselves. 
I suppose they do not admit all to the communion, 
(however unworthy,) who have been once baptized. 
Now infants have no capacity to "discern the Lord's 
body," or to examine themselves before approaching 
the supper. Nor is it ever said of baptism, "He 
that receives it unworthily, receives it to his own 
damnation." 

The children of Jewish parents, though regular 
church members, did not eat of the Passover until a 
given age. So says Calvin, Institutes, b, iv, ch. 16, 



59 

*'The Passover, which has now been succeeded by 
the sacred supper, did not admit guests of all de- 
scriptions promiscuously; but was rightly eaten only 
by those who were of sufficient age to be able to in- 
quire into its signification." 

Josephus says, Antiq. lib. xii, ch. 4, — "The law 
forbids the son to eat of the sacrifice^ before he has 
come to the temple, and there presented an offering 
to God." 

"Children at the age of twelve years (says Poole) 
were brought by their parents to the temple; and 
from that time they began to eat of the Passover ^ and 
other sacrifices.'' 

I shall quote but three more authorities on this 
point. 

"Till a child was twelve years old, he was not 
obliged ta go to Jerusalem at the time of the Pass- 
over." Stackhouse, hist. bib. b. viii, ch. 1. 

"The males were not brought to the temple, till 
they were twelve years oldj and the sacrifices they 
ate, were chiefly peace offerings, which became the 
common food to all that were clean in the family." 
Dr. Doddridge, lee. p. ix, prop. 155. 

Hence we find, (in Luke ii, 21, 41, 42,) that al- 
though Jesus was circumcised at eight flays old, and 



60 

his parents went up every year to the passover feast, 
yet there is no intimation that Jesus ever kept the 
feast, until he was twelve years old; ^'And when he 
was twelve years old, they ivent up to Jerusalem, 
after the custom of the feast.^^ The learned Dr. 
Gill, a Baptist writer, has spoken to the same effect. 
Gill's Com. on Luke ii, 42. "According to the 
maxims of the Jews," says he, "persons were not 
obliged to the duties of the law, or subject to its 
penalties in case of non-performance, until they were, 
a female, at the age of twelve years and one day, 
and a male at the age of thirteen years and one day. 
But then they used to train up their children, and 
inure them to religious exercises before. They 
were not properly under the law until they had ar- 
rived at the age above mentioned; nor were they 
reckoned adult church members, until then, nor then 
neither, unless worthy persons: — for so it is said, 
"He that is worthy, at thirteen years of age, is 
called, a 'son of the congregation of Israel.' " 

From the examination of this objection to infant 
baptism, our views are strengthened; for it appears 
that although infants were formerly circumcised, 
they were not required to eat the Passover. And 
although infants are to be baptized, "as they may be 



61 

the subjects of the renewing of the Holy Ghost, and 
sprinkling of the blood of Christ," signified by bap- 
tism, and can thus be distinguished visibly as the 
special property of Christ, yet they cannot, in the 
supper, 'discern the Lord's body,' and partake of it 
^in remembrance of him;'and are morally and phys- 
ically incapable of coming to the Lord's table, ac- 
cording to the meaning of the institution. 

And although at some periods of the history of 
the church, in some places infant communion was 
held; yet it was never said to have come down from 
the days of the apostles, nor did it ever generally 
prevail in the Christian church. I suppose it came 
into the church as an innovation, the result of super^ 
^tition, and prevailed about as extensively, and stood 
upon the same footing as the practice of baptizing 
men and women naked; dipping them three times^ 
and then giving milk and honey to the baptized. 

We shall in the next place try to ascertain how 
the apostles understood their commission, from the 
manner in which they executed it, as we find the 
matter detailed in the Acts of the Apostles. 

We think it cannot be shown that in any case 
where parents were baptized, their children w«re 
left still to be the disciples of Moses, or in an out- 



62 

east heathen state. We think the cases of family 
or household baptism recorded, furnish, at least, very 
strong presumptive evidence, for infant baptism; and 
I suppose presumptive evidence for them^ will be 
considered good; until some counter evidence is 
produced. 

It is true that Mr. Broaddus says, ser. page 11, 
^' I have myself baptized four households^ and not an 
infant among them.^^ In the whole course of his 
ministry, I suppose in some twelve or fourteen years, 
after baptizing hundreds, as I presume; he has bap- 
tized 'four households, and not an infant among them." 
I really feel a little curiosity to know who they 
were, and how many souls, the four households con- 
tained. 1 wonder if there were any married persons 
among them? I hope if this gentleman should write 
again, he will give us some information on this ex- 
traordinary case,, for it is surely extraordinary to 
hear of a Baptist preacher baptizing even one house- 
hold, except perhaps where a man and his wife, or 
a bachelor and his maiden sister constitute a house- 
hold. We are thankful to Mr. B. for this piece of 
information. It seems then, that in the course of 
his whole ministry, after having baptized hundreds, 
he has met with and baptized four households, that 
had no infants in them. 



63 

Now in the Acts of the Apostles, and in the Epis- 
tles, there are a few famiUes only, mentioned. And 
in every case where there is mention of a family, 
there is the total absence of evidence that any part 
of the family was refused baptism. In every case 
where baptism is mentioned in connection with a 
family, the evidence, as far as it goes, is in favor of 
the baptism of the parent, and the children. 

We will take first, the case of Lydia, Acts xvi, 15 
— ''And w^hen she was baptized, Rud her household.'' 
But Mr. B. thinks, page 10, that possibly the house 
hold were "Lydia's partners in her mercantile oper 
ations," he says, possibly they were ''journeymen dy 
ers'''' "or were they mere travelling companions?' 
Our Baptist friends are so bent upon cutting off the 
right of infants to baptism, that they will suppose 
any thing, however preposterous, to evade the argu- 
ment drawn from household baptisms. 

They will suppose that even partners in business, 
with Lydia, or '' journey men dyers,^^ were baptized, 
and constituted "brethren," although there is no in- 
timation that she had so much as one partner or one 
journeyman; and if she had, (which we think very 
unlikely,) then they were baptized and made breth- 
ren, without grace; for the passage makes no men° 
7 



62 

tion of the heart of any person being opened, except 
Lydia's; and there is no intimation that those jour- 
neymen either repented or beUeved, and of course 
could not have received "beUever's baptism." I ap- 
peal to you, reader, to judge, who would be the most 
fit for baptism, — the children of a believing mother, 
or a household of graceless ^'journeymen dyers.^^ 
"I speak as unto wise men." 

God said, "I will be a God to thee and to thy seedJ'^ 
Peter said, "the promise is unto you and your chil- 
dren.'*^ And Luke says, "Lydia was baptized, and 
her household,^^ "Judge ye what I say." 

Is there not strong presumptive evidence that the 
apostles baptized children with their parents? 

But Mr. B. had to suppose, that Lydia had a dy- 
ing establishment, in order to find a use for 'jour- 
neymen;' and then he thinks it would have been 
"unsuitable" and "inconvenient" for her to have 
brought her infant or infants with her, such a dis- 
tance, even if she had them at home. He thinks it 
'very improbable' that she would have them with 
her. Now, candid reader, I think just the reverse; 
for if Lydia left Thyatira, and came to Philippi, and 
set up a dying establishment, that needed journey- 
men, and went to housekeeping with her 'partners' 



65 

or ^journeymen,' or both, then /say, it is extrennely 
improbable that she would have left any part of her 
family at Thyatira, much less her "infant offspring." 
However inconvenient it miorht be to a mother to 
bring her children such a distance, yet with a motk-^ 
er^s heart, she would doubtless find it much more in- 
convenient to have them so far from her. 

The editor of Calmet, Facts and Evidences, p. 
13, 14, has proved that (Oikos) the word used in the 
passage, when spoken of persons, denotes a family 
of children — and includes children of all ages. And 
he offers not ox\\y ffty examples to prove it, but says 
that ^Hhree hundred instances have been examined, 
and have proved perfectly satisfactory." 

The same writer says, that when the sacred wri- 
ters include servants, and the whole domestic estab- 
lishment, they use the word (Oikia,) and the passage 
above should be read, "and when she was baptized 
and her family." Lydia then had a family of chil- 
dren; and these children were baptized at the same 
time with their mother. 

Again, as this woman appears not to have been 
past the meridian of life, the presumption is, that 
part of those children were young. What Mr. B. 
says about those persons who constituted Lydia's 



66 

family, being the brethren spoken of in the 40 v. 
who were comforted by Paul and Silas; when exam- 
ined a little, will appear destitute even of probability. 
He asks, with an air of triumph, "can these things 
be said with propriety of unconscious babes?" I 
answer no, — and there is no necessity that they 
should be so applied. Reader if you will look at 
y. 16, 18, you will find that the apostles held public 
meetings in Philippi ''many clays'^'' after Lydia's 
conversion, before they were cast into prison; and 
during all that time exercised their ministry unmo- 
lested, until they cast the spirit of divination out of 
a "girl;" which circumstance led to the imprison- 
ment of Paul and Silas. There can be no doubt 
that many were converted at these meetings; espe- 
cially as Paul in his epistle to this church, repre- 
sents them as having lived in fellowship in the gospel 
"from the first day." Philip i, 5. And moreover 
there were two of the apostolic company who were 
not in the prison with Paul and Silas, as you will 
see by examining the context. The company con- 
sisted at least of— 1st, Timothy; 2d, Paul; 3d, Silas; 
4th, Luke. They lodged at the house of Lydia, 
until Paul and Silas were cast in prison. On the 
day after they were released from their imprison' 



67 

nient '•''they entered into the house of Lydia: and 
when they had seen the brethren^ they comforted 
them and departed,'''' This verse does not so much 
as intimate that "the brethren" were Lydia's fami- 
ly. When the intelhgence of the release of the 
apostles from prison, was noised abroad, of course 
the whole of the brethren, Timothy^ Luke, and 
others^ would repair to Paul's lodgings to see him; 
and when he had given them his farewell benedic- 
tion, he departed. 

Once more, on this case of family baptism. It 
will be urged, there is no positive proof that there 
were infants in the family of Lydia. True, and 
there is no positive proof that there were any adults 
besides Lydia herself. "But here is positive proof 
of the baptism o{ children, and a family of children, 
mentioned in connection with the baptism of the 
parent, without a hint being dropped respecting their 
faith, conversion, or consent, or even of their at- 
tending to the things spoken of Paul; though the 
account contains a detail of the parents' conversion, 
in such a way, that their conversion could not well 
have escaped notice had it actually taken place." 

"It will not be contended, we presume, by the Bap- 
tists, that any adults were baptized of whose faith 
7# 



68 

we have not good proof, for this would destroy the 
whole fabric of 'believers' baptism.' When, there- 
fore, we find children baptized, of whose faith we 
have no proof at all, the conclusion is inevitable, 
that children were not baptized by the apostles on 
the same grounds as adults." 

If the sacred writers have taken care to apprize 
us of the previous faith of all the adults who received 
baptism, in order that succeeding ministers might 
not mistake in ofivinor the ordinance to an adult uu- 
believer; did it not equally behove them, if they re- 
quired the same qualifications in children, to use the 
same care in notifying their faith, with the record 
of their reception of the ordinance? And as, in fact, 
they have not done this, does it not necessarily fol- 
low^ that faith in childi^en is not a necessary qvali- 
Jication?^^ Dr. Isaac, p. 185. 

In fact, we never should have known that Lydia 
had a family, were they not incidentally mentioned 
as accompanying her in baptism; — "And when she 
was baptized and her family ^"^^ Insert her baptisnj, 
we find her family; omit her baptism, she has no 
family recorded: the act of her baptism, cannot be 
separated from that of her family. Now if her 
family were of mature age, capable of "attention to 



G9 

the word spoken," capable of having their hearts 
opened, capable of believing, how is it that they are 
not mentioned together with her, as attending, (fee, 
since they are mentioned together with her as re- 
ceiving baptism? Surely Luke did not think their 
being baptized, a more important fact than their 
having "their hearts opened," &c. so that he should 
mention the one and omit the other: but I shall be 
told, — we are to infer their repentance and faith 
from the fact of their baptism. Our opponents are 
as glad to be allowed an i/i/erewce sometimes as their 
neighbors. But, {(their conversion is to be inferred 
from the fact of their baptism, then, might the ecu- 
version of the mother be inferred from her baptism^ 
and there was no necessity that Luke should have 
detailed the circumstances of her change^ we might 
have settled the whole matter by inference, as well 
as a part of it. And, as he detailed the circumstances 
of the conversion of the mother, and said nothing 
of the family, only that they were baptized with her, 
the inference, we think, in the minds of all, who 
have not a theory to support, by rejecting the evi- 
dence, must be irresistible, that they did not re- 
ceive baptism on the same conditions that Lydia 
did — but were made disciples by baptism, that they 



70 

might be taught "the things belonging to the *king- 
dom of God.' " 

The cases of the household of Stephanus, 1 Cor. 
i) I65 and the household of the Philippian jailor, 
Acts xvi, 33, we shall not dwell upon. One remark 
or two on this last mentioned case, and we shall 
proceed. 

Our Baptist friends have often attempted to do 
away the evidence drawn from this case, as Mr. B. 
does, Ser. p. 10, by referring to that part of the pas- 
sage which says, that they spake to him the word of 
the Lord and to all that were in his house, and that 
he rejoiced, believing in God, with all his house, &;c. 
The preaching evidently took place in the outer pris- 
on^ where Paul and Silas were, before they were 
thrust into the inner prison; "and they spake to him 
the word of the Lord and to all that were in his 
house:" v. 32. Here the word (oikia) is used, 
which includes the buildings occupied by the ser- 
vants and prisoners, as well as those appropriated to 
the use of the family. See Mr. Taylor's Facts and 
Evidences. When St. Paul says, v. 31, "thou shalt 
be saved and thy house," he uses another word 
(oikos) which includes the parents and children. 
Hence, when he believed, we find, v. 33, ''he was 



71 

baptized^ and all his, straightway >'^ And suppose 
his family did rejoice with him, there might still be 
infants in it. Have you never read, "out of the 
mouth of babes and sucklings^ thou hast perfected 
praise?" 

It would be well if our Baptist friends would se- 
riously consider this case in the light of truth, and 
the spirit of candor. Though the servants and pris- 
oners together, must have amounted to several per- 
sons; and though the family was undoubtedly numer- 
ous; yet we do not read of any one besides him, and 
ALL his, being baptized. If we suppose, with a Bap- 
tist, that the whole of the jailor's family were con- 
verted under this sermon, it would be one of the 
most singular circumstances, which the history of 
the church has furnished, that the work of conver- 
sion should stop just there; — not one oiall his family 
left; not one of all the rest taken. 

Allow, the childf*en were baptized on the ground 
of their father'' s faith, and all the mystery and diffi- 
culty of the passage vanishes at once. Dr. Isaac, 
p. 192. 

One thing at least is certain, that the jailor and 
his family were not baptized according to the prac- 
tice among the Baptists of modern times. For we 



72 

learn from the passage, that "they were baptized the 
same hour of the night.'' No such case can be 
found in the history of those who deny infant bap- 
tism. There are four reasons why a Baptist minis- 
ter would not have baptized the jailor and his family, 
as the apostles did, after about half an hour's teach- 
ing. 

1st, He would not have deemed them sufficiently 
instructed. They were all idolaters an hour before. 

2nd. They could not have furnished the required 
evidences of their being the subjects of a gracious 
change. It is common for Baptists to delay bap- 
tism for weeks, sometimes for months. 

3d. The concurrence of the church could not be 
had. Lydia and 'the brethren' must have been con- 
sulted. 

4th. There was no opportunity for a public pro- 
fession of Christianity: where the 'Hmposing ordin- 
ance^^ could be loitnessed. 

I judge that the 'pattern' St. Paul worked by, dif- 
fered in several respects, from the pattern of those 
who hold nothing but believer^s baptism. 

Perhaps we could show, (if we were disposed to 
cavil, and find fault with our neighbors,) that the 
practice of our Baptist friends differs very widely 



73 

from the practice of the apostles, as we find their's 
detailed in the Acts. 

We have dwelt longer on the baptism of families, 
than we intended. We shall therefore proceed to 
other evidence for infant baptism. 

We next adduce what our Lord says, Mark x, 13, 
14, 15, 16; Luke xviii, 15; Matt, xix, 13,— Suffer 
the little children to come unto me, and forbid them 
not; for of such is the kingdom of God.'^ With this 
passage, Mr. B. seems somewhat perplexed, for he 
endeavors to make it appear, that those children 
might have been capable of believing. Ser. p. 13, 
Strict, p. 8, he says — -''I am led to doubt exceed- 
ingly, whether the children brought to Jesus were 
unconscious babes, or whether there ever loere any 
unconscious infants brought to Jesus.^^ Now/swp- 
pose if they had been capable of 'believing,' as Mr. 
B. supposes, then neither the disciples or even a 
Baptist preacher would have rebuked those that 
brought them, or have forbidden the children;^ as 
believers are not only capable of being 'blessed,' but 
have a right to baptism, according to our opponents. 
Luke says they were 'infants.' I presume their in* 
■fants were about as ^'unconscious''^ as our infants* 
How ridiculous it is to see a man come with 'Schre- 



74 

velius' Lexicon,' or any other Lexicon in his hand, 
to tell, or prove to plain people, that, although Mark 
says they weve ''young children;^^ and Jesus calls 
them ''little children;''^ and Matthew calls them 'Hit- 
tie children;^'^ and Luke says they were "infants;'*'^ 
and they all say "they were broughf^ to Jesus, and 
"he took them up in his arms^'' and put his hands 
on them, 'Hjet there never were any unconscious in- 
fants brought to JesusP^ "0\ shame, where is thy 
blush!" 

In his Strictures, Mr. B. has tried one mode of 
evading this case; and in his sermon, another mode, 
both equally absurd, and going alike to show how 
very obnoxious the case of those children is to the 
Baptist cause. 

The phrase "kingdom of God," and "kingdom of 
heaven," used by the evangelists, Matthew, Mark 
and Luke, I hold to mean generally, the church un- 
der the gospel dispensation; — "The kingdom which 
(Daniel said) the God of heaven was to set up at the 
end of the seventy weeks," represented in the vision 
by the "little stone taken out of the mountain with- 
out hands." Dan. ii, 44, 45. I am not only sup- 
ported in this view by critics generally, but also by 
that famous Baptist preacher, Robert Hall^—Hall's 



75 

Works, vol. 1, page 372, his words are — "the king- 
dom of God, a phrase which is constantly employed 
in scripture, to denote that state of things which is 
placed under the avowed administration of the Mes- 
siah.'' Now Christ says, "of such ('infants,' 'little 
children') is the kingdom of God," and says to the 
adults, who were present^ "verily I say unto you, 
whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as 
a little child, he shall not enter therein.'' It is wor- 
thy of remark, that while the disciples forbid the 
children, and rebuked those that brought them, the 
master "was much displeased" with those knowing 
adults^ and took the infants in his bosom, and gave 
them his blessing. A Baptist may ask, "how could 
an infant be blessed?" they are "unconscious," "why 
should infants be forced without their choice" to 
Christ, and have his blessing put upon them "with- 
out their consent?" "They might choose to reject 
Christ, when they become adults." These and a 
thousand other questions might be asked. But the 
how and the why^ is not the matter to be settled by 
us; here are the facts, "he took them in his arms," 
"he blessed them," he said, "of such is the kingdom 
of God." It is very doubtful with me, whether Mr. 

B's "extreme doubts" on the subject, even with the 

8 



use of his 'Lexicon/ will invalidate in the minds of 
my readers, the force of these facts. It is hard to 
reason against facts. 

But suppose for argument sake, that the "kingdom 
of God" means the kingdom of glory, our opponents 
gain nothing by it; then the children are fit for heav- 
en, and I suppose, are fit for the church on earth. 
What Mr. B. says in his strictures, about angels 
being unfit for a place in the gospel church, is alto- 
gether gratuitous;— where is it written? He admits. 
Strictures, p. 8, that "the blood of Jesus may be ap- 
plied to children," fitting them for heaven: and still 
he says ''they are fitted by an influence that never 
fits men for the gospel Mngdom.^^ This seems like 
very strange doctrine, 1 suppose Mr. B. holds the 
doctrine of original sin, in opposition to Pelagius; if 
so, infants need an application of the blood of Christ, 
to purify, or make them holy; then the question oc- 
curs, how is this blood applied? the scriptures attri- 
bute the work uniformly to the Holy Spirit: hence 
the angel said, Luke i, 15, of John the Baptist, that 
"he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from 
his mother's womb." Now, candid reader, do you 
know of any other way, to fit men for the gospel 
church, or the kingdom of glory, than by an applica- 



77 

tion of "the blood of Jesus, through the eternal 
spirit?" We read of but one song among the re- 
deemed in heaven; — they all were redeemed by the 
blood of Jesus, and all sing one song. 

Infants, who are in a state of justification, Rom. v, 
18, consequently not guilty, having never commit- 
ted actual, or personal transgression, are made the 
model for adults, "except ye be converted, and be- 
come as little children;^^ "whosoever shall not re- 
ceive the kingdom of God, as a little child," &:c. 
Yet our Baptist friends admit the adults, who are 
formed on the model, and reject the children, 7vho 
are the model by which the qualifications of the 
adult are set forth. Strange! passing strange! 

We shall be told, however, "they were not bap- 
tized, but blessed," — where is the proof? "They 
were to be received in the name of Christ." "They 
were not to be forbidden to come to him.'' The 
Baptists say, all were to come to him in his church 
by baptism. I, therefore, infer, they were baptized, 
and I have just as much evidence of the baptism of 
those children, as any Baptist can find in the New 
Testament, of the baptism of St. Peter and St. John; 
for I have never seen any evidence that Christ ever 
applied water to them, but once, and then he only 



78 

washed their feet. An objector will say — but ive 
infer they were baptized; — very good. You will 
allow me the same liberty. I infer those children 
were baptized, for surely, they obtained some grace, 
when it is said ''he blessed them,^'^ This is more 
than can be said with truth, of many an adult church 
member. See Watson's Exp. on Matt, xix, 13, 
14. 

The Epistles were written to the churches, and 
were to be read in the churches; and children — young 
children — are addressed, and appropriate instruc- 
tion given them, equally with fathers, wives, ser- 
vants, &c. We shall be told they were not "uncon- 
scious babes.'' They were so young that they were 
"yet to be brought z/jo'' and were not to be "jpro- 
vohed^^ by their parents, lest they should be "dis- 
couraged." They had been "baptized into Christ;" 
— into his kingdom as subjectSj— into his school as 
scholars, or disciples, — and were to "obey their pa- 
rents in the Lord in all things, "^^ and to be "brought 
up in the instruction and discipline of the Lord." 
Surely such were not adult believers. When was 
a Baptist church seen, that had persons in it, that 
needed bringing up. They rarely baptize any, ex- 
cept those who have reached adult age. And no 



79 

marvel, when some, at least, of their ministers pub- 
licly ridicule the practice of teaching children to 
pray, and scoff at the efforts made in the Sabbath 
school cause. 

1 never heard, or read of more than two instances, 
where children were admitted as members of a 
Baptist church, as early as twelve years of age, — 
English Bap. Mag. Jan. 1814, — one of those youths 
was eleven, thejother twelve. Now, are children to 
be taught, that God will not give them his grace, 
nor will the church give them her privileges, until 
they reach that age? If our friends can furnish ex- 
amples of earlier piety, we shall rejoice in it, but it 
surely is undeniable, that young people are not as 
generally pious among those who deny infant bap- 
tism as among other denominations. It ought to be 
matter of serious inquiry, why it is, that most of the 
members of Baptist churches, did not become 
pious, until adult age; while the case is different I 
believe, in all other churches. There is no prece- 
dent in scripture, with regard to the particular age 
at which the ordinance ought to be given, except 
one. That is the case of Jesus, "who began to be 
about thirty years of age." We suppose '^our 

friends," who talk so much of "following Jesus dov/n 

8"^ 



80 

to Jordan," and "fulfilling all righteousnessj^—would 
hardly recommend all persons to defer baptism until 
the age of thirty — although this is a part of Christ's 
example. More of this hereafter. When they tell 
us we cannot find the word *^infant" in connection 
with baptism in the scriptures — and therefore have 
"no thus saith the Lord" for it — "no scripture pre- 
cedent," I answer, they cannot find the words, boy, 
girl, old man, young man, yet, they occasionally bap- 
tize some of each. This is very much like a man 
rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity, because he 
does not find the word Trinity in the scriptures. 

I shall produce one more evidence from the scrip- 
tures, 1 Cor. vii, 14, "for the unbelieving husband 
is sanctified by the wife," dec. "else were your chil- 
dren unclean; but now are they holy.'' Mr. B. has 
given — Ser. p. 12, 13 — a caricature of the argument 
of Pedobaptists on this passage — "he says some of 
them contend that infants ought to be baptized, be- 
cause they are pure, and others contend that they 
need it because they are impure," and then gravely 
says, "but I cannot see the force of the argument." 
What argument? if he had taken as much pains to 
present the Pedobaptist view of the passage, as he 
has, to give the fanciful and far-fetched exposition of 



81 

the Rev. Mr. Dagg — the reader might have had 
some idea of the argument for infant baptism, drawn 
from the passage. 

In many places in the scriptures, Ex. xix, 6; Lev. 
X, 10. 2 Chron. xxiii, 6; Chron. xxii, 19; Ezek. xxii, 
26; Luke ii, 23; Acts, x, 28, and xi, 8, 9; Heb. ix, 
13, the word "holy" is applied to things or persons, 
separated from common, and devoted to religious 
uses; separated from the world and devoted to God: 
and is often applied to the visible church, under dif- 
ferent dispensations. Hence the Jews are called a 
"holy people;" and Peter calls the Christian church 
"a holy nation." They were so, professionally ^ 
being "separated from the world to God," — al- 
though each individual member, was not ^'mtrinsi- 
cally holy?"^ 

While our opponents say, that the word "holy" 
as applied to the children in the text, signifies that 
they were "legitimate" children, they do not pretend 
to furnish a single text from the scriptures, where 
the word has that sense; while they expect us to 
take their interpretation without proof, the good Mr. 
Baxter has shown, (Baxter's Inf. Ch. Membership,) 
that in near six hundred places in the bible, the 
word has the sense which I have given it above, 



82 

i. e. "a separation to God,^^ This evidence 1 should 
think, must be decisive with all, v^ho do not inter- 
pret scripture by a creed, but are content to take 
their creed out of the scriptures. If then the chil- 
dren of Christians are "holy" i.e. **separated to 
God," are they separated to God in the church, or 
out of it? If it is replied they are separated to him 
in the church — then they must be church members, 
and that is what we wish to prove; if on the other 
hand it be replied, they are "separated to God" in 
the world, then truly they present an anomalous 
case, they are truly "peculiar." They do not be- 
long to the church, they do not belong to the world. 
"The church is in Christ;''— "the world lieth in the 
wicked one," but those hapless children are in 
neither; they neither belong to God, nor the devil! 
If they are not "unclean" but "holy," the apostle 
clearly establishes, or asserts, a distinction between 
the children of heathens, who were unclean, and de- 
voted to heathen gods, and the children of professing 
Christians, which were separated and devoted to 
God. "The unbelieving husband (being one flesh 
with the believing wife) is sanctified by the wife," 
and (vice versa) so that the children are not 'un- 
clean,' or left in a heathen state, but "separated to 



83 

God" with the believing parent. I am supported in 
this opinion by the learned Whitby. His language 
is — "And though one of the parents be still a hea- 
then, yet is the denomination to be taken from the 
better, and so their offspring are to be esteemed, not 
as heathens, i. e. unclean, but holy, as all Christians 
by denomination are." See Whitby on the place. 
Clemens Alexandrinus, held the same view of this 
passage. "Hence then (says Whitby) the argument 
for infant baptism runs thus: If the holy seed among 
the Jews, was therefore to be circumcised, and be 
made federally holy, by receiving the sign of the 
covenant, and being admitted into the number of 
God's "holy people," because they were born in 
sanctity, or were seminally holy; for the root being 
holy, so are the hranches also; then by like reason, 
the holy seed of Christians, ought to be admitted to 
baptism, and receive the sign of the Christian cove- 
nant." 

What merit 'Mr. Dagg's exposition' may possess 
as a whole, 1 am unprepared to say, but the speci- 
men Mr. B. has given of it, surely does not present 
it in a very favorable light. Hear him — "If a be- 
lieving husband must leave his wife because she is 
an unbeliever, for the same reason your offspring 



84 

must be cast off, for they would upon the principle 
herein involved, he as unclean on account of unbelief, 
to the believing parents, as an unbelieving husband 
or wife, would be to the other who is a believer." 
But perhaps Mr. B. may bring a Lexicon to prove 
that the term translated children, means 'posterity.' 
Certainly it does, and so includes the youngest in- 
fants. Now, although Mr. D. and Mr. B. both talk 
about infants or children 'being in unbelief^ one says 
they are 'unclean on account of unbelief;' the other 
says 'infants are baptized in unbelief.' I should like 
those gentlemen to furnish one single text of scrip- 
ture, where either children or infants, have unbelief 
attributed to them, or are said to be 'in unbelief.' 
There is a manifest discrepancy, not to say a flat 
contradiction, in the language used by Mr. B. in his 
Strictures, p. 10, and in his Sermon, p. 7 and 26. 
When reasoning, in the Strictures, on the salvation of 
infants, he says — "The gospel cannot condemn them, 
because they cannot be guilty of the sin of unbelief,''^ 
In his Sermon, when he wants to exclude them from 
the rite of baptism, he says, — "I will engage to prove, 
my hearers, that the commission, actually excludes 
all unbelievers, whether unconscious infants, or un- 
believing adults.'' Again he says — "Thousands of 



86 

believers admit (i. e. baptism) because they were 
baptized while in unbelief f f^^ I think this needs a 
salvo; there is at least 'a glorious uncertainty'' about 

it' 

We have seen from the evidence produced above, 
that the children of those Corinthians were not 'un- 
clean' but 'holy,' and as no instance can be given of 
a person being called holy, who was not a member 
of the visible church of God; the inference is unde- 
niable that holy infants belonged to the visible church 
of Christ. 

"Having thus established their membership, I shall 
take their baptism for granted, till our Baptist breth- 
ren admit people into their churches without the 
ordinance." Dr. Isaac, p. 164. 

Mr. B. asks a question on this point which I must 
say a word in reply to. "Was baptism designed 
for the benefit of holy beings? The commission in 
that case ought to be read, go ye, «&:c., and baptize all 
you find who are holy. Upon that plan, all adults 
would be excluded, seeing all adults are sinners." 
He says, Ser. p. 28, — "Baptism brings us, after re- 
generation, into the visible kingdom of Jesus Christ." 
Are thoy 'regenerated,^ and yet sinners — 'buried 
with Christ in baptism/ and yet sinners—'crucified 



86 

with Christ, that the body of sin might be destroy- 
ed^^ and yet sinners? The apostle says, 'their chil- 
dren were holy;' and take Mr. B's interpretation of 
the word, and say they were holy in the longest, 
broadest, highest sense of that word, even then, I 
suppose, candid reader, you will admit, that holiness 
would furnish as valid a reason for baptism as sin 
especially in view of the fact, that the holiness of the 
%oly Jesus'^ did not disqualify him for baptism!! 

We remark in evidence further, the antiquity of 
the practice of infant baptism, may be considered as 
strong evidence on the subject. If the baptism of 
children was not practiced by the apostles, and by 
the primitive Christians, when and where did the 
practice commence? 

To this question, Baptist writers g^enerally do not 
attempt to give an answer, because they cannot. 
It is an innovation, say they, not upon the circuM' 
stances of a sacrament, but upon its essential princi- 
ple. And yet its introduction produced no struggle; 
was never noticed by any general, or provincial 
council; and excited no controversy; this itself, is 
strong presumptive evidence of its early antiquity. 

Our Baptist friends, from time to time, have at- 
tempted to find its origin. Mr. B. says, Ser. p. 27 



87 

—It was introduced by the Romish apostacy, and 
*calls on all candid Pedobaptist Protestants, as they 
would desire the world to be delivered from the 
abominations of Popery, to abandon this Popish cer- 
emony.' This reminds me of the famous argument 
of some people, against the doctnnes of Christ's di- 
vinity, and the Trinity of persons in the Godhead; 
that they ought to be rejected by Protestants, because 
they were a part of the doctrines of the Church of 
Rome. Query — Is this the cause why such large bod- 
ies of men, who have denied infant baptism at dif- 
ferent periods, in Germany, Poland, &c., have been 
Socinians?!! See Benedict's Hist, of the Baptists, 
p. 172 '3 54 '5. 

I suppose that it is the part of charity and candor, 
to 'rejoice in the t?*uth,'^ whether that truth be 
found among Protestants, or Catholics — -with Luther, 
or the Pope. Unfortunately for our Baptist friends, 
however, infant baptism is not only found with Lu- 
ther, and the Pope, but with the Greek church, 
that never had any connection with the Pope, from 
the earliest periods of her history. And if, as the 
Baptists say, — -Benedict's history of the Baptists, page 
58, 59, 60; infant baptism was introduced in Africa, 

from the first to the middle of the third century; con- 
9 



88 

fined at first to catechised minors^ and in about forty 
years, decided to be the rite of infants, by an eccle- 
siastical council, how. did it happen, that there was 
but little more said on the subject until the year 
416? And how did it happen that although the 
Vandals overran that part of Africa about "the year 
429, and the Catholics fled into Europe, carrying in- 
fant baptism with them," "that its entrance into Eu- 
rope was of a later date," and "the first ecclesiastical 
canon in Europe on the subject, was" as late as "the 
sixth century?" "And the first imperial law on the 
subject in the eighth century, by the emperor Charle- 
magne?" 

Mr. Judson supposed, that infant baptism was in- 
troduced towards the close of the second century — 
while Mr. Broaddus considers it a relic of Popery; 
although Popery did not exist, as such, until after 
the sixth century,-— this is only a difierence of 
opinion between two Baptist preachers, each reject- 
ing infant baptism; one dating its origin only 400 
years later than the other. No marvel that we should 
differ from them — when they cannot agree among 
themselves, on the origin of 5o great an innovation 
upon ^'gospel order, '^'^ 

Now we would ask Mr. Benedict, and our Baptist 



89 

friends — where were the Baptist churches, all this 
time? The descendants of "their ancient brother," 
John the Baptist; were there none found faithful 
among the primitive Christians, to utter the voice 
of warning, on the subject of this great innovation? 
There was none found, candid reader, to object, ex- 
cept Tertullian, and he objected as much to the 
baptism of "unmarried believers," as he did to in- 
fants; and admitted the validity of 'infant baptism,' 
where there was danger of death. Of course then, 
he was not a Baptist. 

Mr. Benedict says, History, page 92, — "We date 
the origin of our sentiments, and the beginning of 
our denomination, about the year of our Lord, 29 or 
30; for at that period, John the Baptist began to 
immerse professed believers in Jordan and Enon, 
and to prepare the way for the coming of the Lord's 
anointed, and for the setting up of his kingdom." It 
is generally admitted that John baptized hundreds 
of thousands. If this was the origin of the Baptist 
denomination, what became of all those thousands, 
for about twelve hundred years, that there was none 
found to demur at infant baptism?! Surely they 
could not have been in existence in Christendom, or 
they did not look upon the baptism of 'unconscious 



90 

babes' in the same light that modern Baptists do; 
one or the other of those conclusions we think inev- 
itably true. Mr. Broaddus, Ser. page 21, 22, at- 
tempts to dispose of the 'testimony of the fathers' in 
a very summary manner; and in support of his views, 
quotes Dr. Hill. Novv^if the 'testimony of the fath- 
ers,' having been in the keeping of the church of 
Rome, is sufficient reason, as those gentlemen sup- 
pose, why it should be rejected, I would ask, if the 
infidel might not urge the same reason, against his 
receiving the New Testament scriptures? The 
classing 'infant baptism' with 'infant communion,' 
transubstantiation, &c. is altogether gratuitous. It 
stands on different grounds. 

Let us hear on this subject the sentiment of the 
intelligent and candid Baptist writer. Dr. Gale; he 
says — "I will grant it is probable, that what all or 
most of the chur6hes practised immediately after 
the apostle's times, had been appointed or practised 
by the apostles themselves; for it is hardly to be im- 
agined that any considerable body of these ancient 
Christians, and much less that the whole, should so 
soon deviate from the customs and injunctions of 
their venerable founders, whose authority they held 
so sacred. New opinions or practices are usually 
introduced by degrees, and not without opposition. 



91 

Therefore, in regard to baptism, a thing of such 
universal concern, and daily practice, I allow it to 
be very probable^ that the primitive churches kept 
to the apostolic pattern. I verily believe^ that the 
primitive church maintained, in this case, an exact 
conformity to the practice of the apostles^ which, 
doubtless, agreed entirely with Christ's institutions.' 
See Gale's reflections on Y^all, page 398. 

I shall adduce, now, two or three testimonies from 
the fathers, to show what was the practice of the 
primitive church. 

Justin Martyr, who wrote in the second century, 
speaks of some who were then sixty or seventy 
years old, 'who were made disciples' or members 
4n their infancy. '^ But Mr. B. referring to his Lex- 
icon, says. Strictures, page 7, the word rendered 
'infant' may be rendered youth. I shall not stop 
here to dispute about this word. Ireneus, who wrote 
within 67 years of the apostolic times, says, "Christ 
came to save all persons by himself; all, I mean, who 
by him are baptized unto God; infants and little ones, 
and children and youths," Dr. Wall, In. Bap. vol. 1, 
eh. 3; he is said to have been personally acquainted 
with Polycarp^ a disciple of St. John, and had heard 

him preach. 
9* 



92 

Origen^ of the Greek church, who was a man of 
great learning, and acquainted extensively with the 
church; and who had good opportunity to know the 
practice of the apostles, as his great grandfather was 
a Christian, and cotemporary with the apostles, says, 
'infants, by the usage of the church, are baptized. 
The church had a tradition, or command, from the 
apostleSj to give haptisin to infants;'^^ Wall's Defence, 
page 372, 383, Dr. Doddridge's Lee. p. 9. Mr. 
Judson tried in vain to overturn this testimony. 

Cyprian, and the council of Carthage, in the year 
253, where 66 bishops met, not to decide whether 
infants were to be baptized, but whether they might 
be baptized before the eighth day; and they were 
unanimously of opinion, 'that they,' infants, 'might 
be baptized as soon as they were born.' — Cyprian, 
Epist. 66. Lord Chancellor King, in his account 
of the primitive church, remarks, ''Here then is a 
synodical decree for the baptism of infants, as formal 
as can possibly be expected, which is of more weight 
than the private judgment o^ a father, and more au- 
thentic; as he might give his own opinion only, but 
this (the decision of a synod,) denotes the common 
practice and usage of the whole church,'^'' Inquiry 
into the Constitution, &c. part ii, ch 3. 



93 

Pelagius maintained infant baptism, although the 
practice made against his heresy. He denied orig- 
inal sin — and was the author of what is called Pelag- 
ianism. He lived 300 years after the apostles. 
He says, 'men slander me, as if I denied the sacra- 
ment of baptism to infants, I never heard of any, 
not even the most impious heretic, who denied bap- 
tism to infants.' Wall's history of In. Bap. p. 62. 

This man had every inducement to deny infant 
baptism, if he could have found a shadow of evidence 
to have borne him out. The usage of the church 
in this respect, was a standing irrefragable argument 
against his heresy. 

So much for the 'testimony of the fathers.' You 
can judge, candid reader, whether it is to be passed 
over as nothing worth, in view of the fact, that those 
who 'deny infant baptism,' have no evidence to put 
in bar. 

The Christian church, was early divided in sen- 
timent, on doctrine, and split into sects, who ever 
kept upon each other a v/atchful eye; and the 'pat- 
tern' could not have been so altered, as to admit the 
universal prevalence of such an innovation, without 
an alarm being given. 'I speak as unto wise men, 
judge ye what I say.' 



94 

Our Baptist friends try to make out their relation- 
ship with the Waldenses, those witnesses for the 
truth in the dark ages. I confess, I was a little amus- 
ed, at the attempt of Mr. Benedict in his history, on 
this subject. 

That Peter De Brais, and his followers, (who were 
only a small fraction of the people called Waldenses,) 
did deny infant baptism is undeniable, but on differ- 
ent grounds from our Baptist friends. This man 
arose in France about 1200 years after Christ, and 
held, that infants could not he saved, and therefore 
ought not to be baptized, 'as they could not work out 
their own salvation.' 

They held about the same proportion to the great 
body of the Waldenses, ivho held infant baptism, as 
the 'Seventh-day' Baptists do, to the great body of 
the Baptists who hold 'the Lord's-day' as the Sab- 
bath. If I were to report that the Baptists in the 
United States, keep the 'seventh-day' as their Sab- 
bath, I should be about as near right, as Baptist 
writers are, when they say that the Waldenses 'deni- 
ed infant baptism,' for those ivho have denied it 
among them, have been as about one to thirty. Dr. 
Miller on Bap. p. 40, 41, 42, 43. 

In an expose of the views of the Waldenses, made 



95 

as early as the 12tli century, although they oppose 
many errors of the Romish church — such as praying 
to saints, purgatory, masses, &;c.; and say that there 
are but two sacraments, Baptism and the Lord^s 
Supper; yet they utter not one word against 'infant 
baptism.' Watson's Die. Art. Waldenses. They 
had bishops among them; "and after the opening of 
the reformation under Luther, the Waldenses sought 
intercourse with the Reformed churches of Geneva 
and France; held communion with them; received 
ministers from them; acknowledged them as breth- 
ren in the Lord, &c. Now it is well known, that 
those churches held infant baptism; and this fact 
alone, we think sufficient to show that those pious 
people were Pedobaptists.'' Dr. Miller, p. 43. 

Why should those who deny infant baptism, wish 
to prove, that the Waldenses were their predeces- 
sors or ancestors? If they could make this out, they 
would then be 900 years from the days of John the 
Baptist; for Mr. Benedict, in his history, can furnish 
no certain evidence that the Waldenses had any ex- 
istence earlier than the 9th century. Let our op- 
posing brethren, give the world 'a thus saith the 
Lord' for rejecting infants, and then there is an end 
to the controversy. No doubt, from the earliest his- 



96 

tory of the Waldenses, Albigenses, iSz;c. there has 
been a difference of opinion among them, on many 
points, as there is now, among different denomina- 
tions of Christians, not excepting the Baptists. There 
may have been some besides the followers of Peter 
de Bruis^ who differed with the great body of their 
brethren for some reason, about infant baptism; but 
surely this does not justify an effort to make out that 
that people, as a people, were not Pedobaptists. I 
know a number of Baptists who are in favor of free 
communion, and some who have communed with 
Christians of other denominations, until they endan- 
gered their membership in their own church thereby; 
and I might show from the works of that celebrated 
man, 'John Bunyan,' that he admitted members to 
his communion, who had been baptized in infancy, 
and had never received what is called 'believers' bap- 
tism;' Bunyan's Works, vol. 2, p. 216, 217, 218, 
219, but would it be fair, and honorable in me, to 
draw a general conclusion from these particular 
cases? and then say Hhe Baptists in Virginia are in 
favor of free communion; and the Baptists in Europe, 
in the days of Bunyan, admitted persons to church 
fellowship without believers' baptism?' surely nothing 
would be more unfair. 



97 

We have seen from historical evidence, that the 
church for 1200 years, (not to say for 1522 years,) 
always held infant baptism, and during all that time 
none never rejected it, on any such grounds as are 
now urged by our Baptist brethren. He who can, 
in view of all this evidence, persist in his opposition 
to the baptism of children, must, it appears to me, 
be prepared to make a sacrifice of all historical evi- 
dence, at the altar of a prejudice that is both deaf, 
and blind; too deaf to hear the voice of reason, and 
too blind to see the light of truth. This language 
is strong; because it is the result of strong convic- 
tion, on my own mind. I have long since learned 
that where men can laugh, and sneer, at the consci' 
entious conduct of people as pious as themselves, be- 
cause they choose to dedicate their children to God 
in baptism; and can make sport with the feelings of 
a mother, who wishes to have her child given to 
God in his ordinance before it dies, (Mr. B's Ser. p. 
26,) I say 1 have long since learned, that, with such 
(at least) no other language will make any impres- 
sion. You had as well attempt to "draw out levia- 
thian with a hook." Job, xli. Such in the language 
of St. Paul, Titus i, 13, need to be 'rebuked sharply;' 
and though they may not be induced to be 'sound in 



98 

faith^-^they may perhaps be taught to treat with 
Christian courtesy, those who, as Bunyan says, "may 
not see it their duty, to jump with them»^^ A candid 
Baptist friend, once said to me, it would not do for us 
to admit infant baptism. Why? said I; his reply 
was, "We would be like farmers who cut off their 
corn while it is young." Thank you for your can- 
dor, was my reply. You think that if all the chil- 
dren were baptized in infancy, there would be no 
corn gathered into the Baptist garner, in adult age. 
I have often wondered, why the baptism of children 
should so disturb our "differing brethren." But I 
perceive, in Mr. B's Sermon, p. 26, a little light on 
this point, — he says, Ht is a positive eviV Why so? 
Look, reader, lower down on the same page, and yoii 
will see; because by it, thousands who are brought 
to the knowledge of the truth,' are led to refuse 'be* 
lievers' baptism.' This, to be sure, is a sore evil; but 
happily, not so much to the convert, as to those who 
would proselyte him, by teazing him about 'believers' 
baptism.^ A man goes on in sin, his baptized neigh- 
bor never reproves him or talks seriously to him, 
about the 'salvation' of his precious soul; he goes to a 
Pedobaptist meeting; is awakened and converted to 
God— returns home— soon has a visit from his neigh=> 



99 

bor. He wonders what has brought his friend so 
early to see him. 

Neighbor^ I wish to have a Uttle conversation 
with you. 

Convert, Certainly. 

Neighbor. I was pleased to hear that you have 
^'found grace^^ at the ^**'^ meeting; I wish you to 
tell me your experience. 

The convert proceeds to detail his experience. 

Neighbor. "Very good /"^^ "a gospel experience,^^ 
^^very much like my own;^^ "now all you want is one 
thing,^^ 

Convert, Pray neighbor what is that? I am 
happy in God; "believing, I rejoice with joy un- 
speakable." I am not conscious of wanting any 
thing but "more grace,^^ What do you mean? 

Neighbor. Why- — why — the "Master says" "be- 
lieve and be baptized.^^^ 

Convert, Oh, is that what you mean? On that 
subject I have no concern. I was baptized in infan- 
cy; and I now have the thing signified, i. e. "the re- 
newing of the Holy Ghost,'' — just as the Jewish 

* I cannot find those words in this form in the New Tes- 
tament. They remind me of the old colored man's text— 
"The Lord says, be baptized in much water. ^' 
10 



100 

children I'eceived the seal of the covenant in child- 
hood, and at adult age^ became 'circumcised in heart/ 

Neighbor^ Well, but you must obey the "com- 
mandment." 

Convert. Neighbor, 7ny parents loere Christians^ 
and you cannot show me a commandment^ or a pre- 
cedent for baptizing the children of Christian pa^ 
rents at adult age. And moreover, I cannot join a 
church, whose confession of faith I do not believe; 
and I could not receive believers' baptism, if I wish- 
ed itj without joining your church. 

Neighbor, Why friend, as for the confession of 
faith, you need not mind that, for one of our elders 
said, "he would not give the confession of faith room 
in his saddle-bags." And again, we hold nearly the 
same doctrines those do, among whom you found 
the Lord; as you may find from our preaching; we 
may differ a little about falling from grace, — but 
that is not much you know." 

Convert, Well, friend, I cannot judge so much 
what men believe in our day, from their preaching 
as from their confessions of faith. 

Neighbor, I wish ycu well neighbor. Farewell. 

Convert, I wish you the same — for I trust, as 
St. Paul says — '^ive have been both baptized by one 
spbnt into Christ.^^ 



101 

They part, and he, who would have "compassed 
sea and land" to have made a proselyte of his neigh- 
bor, says, as he ^valks mournfully home, fJled with 
disappointment and chagrin, "it is a positive 
EVIL," that my neighbor was baptized in infancy. 

We have seen, candid reader, in the course of this 
argument, 

1. God has but one church, and never had more. 
— Christ was the angel, that was with the church 
"i/2 the wilderness; and they teinpted Christ ."^^ 1 
Cor. x. 9. 

2. In that church, the right of infants to member- 
ship was admitted for two thousand years. 

3. That right never was done av/ay by any 
"statute of repeal." 

4. The only two general covenants that God ever 
made with man, he made with Adam, in the Garden 
of Eden,"^ the covenant of works, which was 
broken. And the covenant of grace in Christ. 

5. This covenant of grace, was the same that 
was confirmed to Abraham, (four hundred and thirty 
years before the giving of the law,) of which cir- 
cumcision was then made the seal and sign* 

*1 am happy to find this view borne out, by the old Phil- 
adelphia Baptist Confession of Faith, printed by Benjamin 
Franklin in 1742,— pages 72, 73, 74. 



102 

6. This covenant recognized the right of children 
to membership, and admitted them to the sign of the 
covenant. 

7. This covenant was fully developed under the 
gospel dispensation, when Christ became visibly 
^'the minister of the covenant." 

8. Under the gospel, the children of the Jews 
were not rejected, because none were broken off from 
"the true olive," except for "unbelief," of which 
Jewish infants ivere incapable. 

9. Christ encouraged the reception of children in 
his name, and blessed them; and put no clause in the 
commission of the apostles, tQ change the order 
which had existed, ivith regard to children, for 
thousands of years* 

10. They all, bei?ig Jews, would so understand the 
commission as to admit the children, unless forbid- 
den so to do. 

11. The baptism of families was practised in the 
days of the apostles, and it is unreasonable to sup- 
pose there were no infants among them. 

12. The church practised it for at least twelve 
hundred years without opposition, except from Ter- 
tullian, and the Petrobrusians; who opposed it on 
different grounds than those on which our Baptist 
friends oppose it* 



103 

13. If it had been an innovation upon "gospel or- 
der,'' or a departure from the ^'original pattern,''^ 
some Baptist, surely, would have raised his voice 
against it, in twelve centuries. An innovation of the 
kind, could not have been introduced without a spirit- 
ed controversy; the existence of which controversy, 
no Baptist has ever been able to show. 

14. And finally, that the Waldenses, those oppo- 
sers of the corruptions of the Romish church, were 
generally Pedobaptists. 

In concluding this part of the general argument, 
we say, — he who takes the Baptist view of this sub- 
ject, has to suppose, on the contrary, that when the 
gospel dispensation was opened, a dispensation of 
larger jjromises and increased privileges and lihe- 
rality, the right of infants to membership was taken 
away; and that this took place without one hint or 
reason being given for it; without any single men- 
tion of it in the apostolic writings. N&y, that in- 
stead of such notice and explanation, a mode of ex- 
pression was adopted under the ''neiv economy, ^^ simi- 
lar to that used before; calculated to convey the 
idea, that parents and children stood in their old re- 
lation; notwithstanding the supposed painful change. 

That parents, Christian parents, saw their children 
10* 



104 

rejected, who always had seen them admitted while 
they were Jews; and yet no murmur was heard, no 
explanation asked. Is this credible?!!! This silence 
"pleads trumpet tongued," against the views of our 
Baptist friends, and has the* weight of an hundred ar- 
guments ^br infant baptism. 

The argument, therefore, is reduced to this; "if 
infant baptism is an innovation, it confessedly enter- 
ed the church very soon after the canon of scripture 
closed;'' and in a few years more, "without a single 
precept to warrant, or a single example to encourage 
it; yea with the well known practice of the apostles, 
and of all the churches they ever planted, directly, 
openly, palp ably against it; under all these disadvan- 
tages, it so universally prevailed, that, upon the face 
of the whole earth, there was not a church found, 
were it was not performed.'' Yea more; it entered the 
church, it prevailed, it became universal, without a 
ivhisper of opposition, without a word of dispute. All 
parties in the eastern church, and all parties in the 
western church, confederating to connive at the er- 
ror, to blot out every trace of it from the page of history, 
and never to utter a single word, from which it could he 
discovered that they had departed from the gospel rule; 
to that man who believes this, what can be incredi- 



105 

hie?!! such surely would make good disciples of the 
doctrine of transubstantiation. For such, we think, 
could easily take another step; and denying the evi- 
dence of their senses, swallow a wafer for the real 
body and blood of Christ. "L speak as unto wise 
men, judge ye what I say.'' 

A few observations more in reply to the question, 
who are the proper subjects of baptism'? and we 
shall close this part of the general argument. 

We readily admit that believers, in the fullest 
sense of that word are proper subjects, and that the 
possession of the highest religious experience, fur- 
nishes no bar to the reception of the outward sign. 
In reading the Acts of the Apostles, it will be seen, 
that the ordinance was given both to those that had, 
and to those that had not, received the Holy Ghost* 
On the day of Pentecost, when three thousand in- 
quired what they must do, Peter said, ''repent and 
be baptized every one of you, for the remission of 
sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
Ghost.'' By what they saw and heard, especially 
the gift of tongues, by which each was enabled to 
hear the Vt'onderful works of God in the language in 
which each was born, they were convinced of the 
Messiahship of Christ, and saw their own guilt and 



106 

danger, and inquired of the apostles the way of es- 
cape. We presume it will not be said that they had 
a Christian experience, in the usual sense of that 
phrase. See Acts ii. 

In the 8th chapter of Acts, we find recorded the 
case of the Samaritans, who heard Philip "preach- 
ing the things concerning the kingdom of God, and 
the name of Jesus Christ, and when they saw the 
miracles which he wrought, they believed his preach- 
ing upon the evidence of those miracles, and "were 
baptized, both men and women." And it was not 
until "the apostles at Jerusalem had heard that Sa- 
maria had received the word of God" and had sent 
down Peter and John, who laid their hands on them 
and prayed, that the Holy Ghost came on them. 
Now if our Baptist friends should say, that what they 
received was not the ordinary y but the extraordinary, 
gift of the Spirit of God, for the purpose of speak- 
ing with tongues, &c., they must say it upon their 
own responsibility, for there is not a shadow of evi- 
dence of it in the text. And if they should still per- 
sist in saying that they were genuine converts^ expe- 
rienced believers yh^ioYe Peter and John came to them, 
then they admit that a man may be an experienced 
Christian without the Holy Ghost; and if one man 



107 

or many, (as in this case,) then all mighty and the 
conclusion would be, there is no need of the Holy 
Ghost, in constituting men real believers, genuine 
converts. For Luke says, (v. 15, 16,) "who, when 
they were come down, prayed for them, that they 
might receive the Holy Ghost. For as yet he was 
fallen upon none of them; only they were baptized 
in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then laid they their 
hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.' 

But if our Baptist friends should still say that, these 
people had a religious experience before they were 
baptized, then they throw themselves into another 
dilemma; for what is said of their religion, is said 
also of Simon's; in v. 13, it is said, ^'Then Simon 
himself believed also; and when he was baptized," 
&c. Did Simon obtain the grace of evangelical faith 
before baptism? then he must have fallen from grace, 
and fallen foully too, for Peter, said to him, v. 21, 
23, — 'Thou hast neither part, nor lot in this matter,' 
'Thou art in the gall of bitterness,^ 

Then what becomes of the favorite doctrine, 'once 
in grace always in grace.' But perhaps I shall be 
told, Simon Magus never had any grace; then he got 
an experience v/ithout grace, or if you like it better, 
he was baptized without grace, and if he was, so were 



108 

the rest, for what is said of their faiti], is said of his, 
I may be told further, Simon was a reprobate, and 
never had any thing more than a common call and 
common grace. Then Philip baptized a reprobate. 
And even after he had offered to buy the Holy Ghost 
with money, Peter exhorted him to repentance and 
prayer, that he might be forgiven. Query — if Si- 
mon had given heed to Peter's exhortation, (and there 
is some proof that he did, v. 24, for he asked an in- 
terest in the apostle's prayers,) and had prayed, re- 
pentedy and become a gemmie believer, would our 
Baptist brethren have thought it necessary to re-bap- 
tize Simon? If they apply the same reasoning 
to adults that they do to children, in explainincr 
the commission, or what Mr. Campbell calls 4he 
law of baptism,' namely, that baptism must always 
follow faith, and not go before it, in any case, as the 
commission says, — 'He that believeth and is baptiz- 
ed;' — did Simon's want of evangelic faith, vitiate, or 
render his baptism a nullity? if it did, then he ought 
to have been re-baptized upon his repentance; if it 
did not, then I cannot see how the baptism of an in- 
fant is rendered a nullity, by its unbelief, when at 
adult age. 

The argument attempted to be drawn from the or- 



109 

der of the words in the commission, is entirely so- 
phistical. As much so as if I were to say, that be- 
cause "John the Baptist, baptized in the wilderness, 
and preached th^ baptism of repentance," therefore 
John always baptized the people ^7'sf, and preached 
the baptism of repentance to them afterwards. 

Having digressed thus far, I remark, this case of 
Simon's is a very perplexing case, especially to all 
Calvinist Baptists, for when examined, it is found 
to endanger one of two of their favorite opinions. 
From both horns of the dilemma it is impossible to 
escape. Either Simon had no grace and was bap' 
tized without an experience^ or he had grace when 
baptized^ and afterwards so utterly lost it, that he 
had no part or lot in the matter. They can take, can- 
did reader, just which side of the question, just that 
horn of this dilemma, that may suit them best. It 
is common of two evils, for men in self-love, to choose 
the least, and as grace is more valuable than water, 
even 'much loater^ 1 suppose they will cling to the 
consolation of the Lord's dear people, 'Svhere he be- 
gins a Vrork of grace, he always carries it on to the 
end," and will suppose that Philip, some how or other 
('although he was full of wisdom and of the Holy 
Ghost') made a mistake, and baptized an improper 
candidate in that particular case. 



no 

The true state of the case, seems to have been this, 
Philip entered Samaria, commenced preaching Christ, 
and to Confirm his doctrine, began to 'heai the lame,' 
*to cure the palsied,' and to cast out unclean spirits, 
that cried with a loud voice as they came out of 
those who were possessed of them. Simon, and the 
Samaritans, heard his message, saw the miracles; 
were convinced that the message was true; were 
willhig to enter the school of Christ as disciples, by 
baptism, that they might be made better acquainted 
with this new religion. 

Christianity was established by miracle, and those 
who gave it credence in the early part of its history, 
rested their faith or conviction of its truth, not so 
much upon a thorough knowledge of its peculiar 
doctrines, as upon the evidence brought home to their 
minds, through the medium of their senses; and 
those senses were powerfully addressed by the mira- 
cles of our Lord and his apostles. So ignorant were 
the apostles themselves of the peculiar doctrines of 
Christianity, that up to the period of the Saviour's 
crucifixion, "they wondered what the rising from the 
dead should mean." Eloquent Apollos himself, knew 
so little of the peculiarities of Christianity, (even 
after he had convinced the Jews that Jesus was 



HI 

Christ,) that it was necessary, a plain mechanic and 
his wife, should teach him the way of the Lord 
^'more perfectly,^^ And so ignorant were the twelve 
disciples, found by Paul at Ephesus, that they knew 
not that there was any Holy Ghost. See Acts, ch« 
19. And those disciples received the Christian bap- 
tism from the hands of the apostles, in addition to 
the baptism of John, which they had previously re- 
ceived; and when they had received water baptism 
in the name of Jesus, and Paul had laid his hands 
on them, "the Holy Ghost came on them.'' 

The case of Saul of Tarsus, as found in the Acts, 
eh. 22, is in point. He was exhorted by Ananias 
to "arise and be baptized and wash away his sinsj 
calling on the name of the Lord." To this penitent 
sinner he said, "Why tarriest thou? arise and be bap- 
tized." It would not look well, to fly in the face of 
the text, and say that his sins were washed away^ 
before he was admitted to the ordinance. 

The Ethiopian eunuch is the only person that we 

find in the Acts, professing to believe with the heart 

unto righteousness, in order to baptism. And his 

faith seems to have had reference to one point alone*^ 

he said to Philip, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the 

Son of God." He heard but one sermon, was in com' 
11 



112 

pany with Philip perhaps one hour, and ere they 
parted, Phihp made a disciple of him by baptism. 

It is true that Cornelius, and those in his house. 
Acts, ch. 10, did receive the Holy Ghost while Pe- 
ter was speaking the word; and received Christian 
baptism subsequently; but the reader will observe, 
that this was a peculiar case; it was the opening of 
the gospel dispensation to the Gentiles; when Peter, 
with the keys which Christ gave him, was to "open 
the kingdom of heaven to the Gentiles" as he had 
done proviously, to the Jews. And the same rea- 
son that made it necessary to show Peter a vision to 
induce him to go to Cornelius, made it necessary to 
send upon those Gentiles the Holy Ghost prior to 
baptism; and by examining the passage, you may 
observe that the six brethren who came from Joppa 
with Peter, were astonished when they observed 
that God had given the Gentiles the Holy Ghost. 
"Then said Peter, who can forbid water?'' &;c. 
When the news of this visit reached Jerusalem, they 
of the circumcision, contended with Peter; and he, 
in making his defence, adduces this circumstance as 
his vindication: ''While 1 was speaking the Holy 
Ghost came on them,'^^ &;c., "and what was I that I 
could withstand God?" 



113 

These doubtless had a religious experience in the 
fullest sense of the word; but it will appear evident, 
we think, to all who examine the Gospels and the 
Acts, that the ordinance was never delayed for the 
want of an experience of grace. In almost every 
case, both Christ and his apostles gave the ordinance 
to all without exception, and without delay, who ap- 
plied to them, and were willing to assume the re- 
sponsibilities of discipleship. Hence we find in John, 
eh. vi> 60, 66, — "Many, therefore, of his disciples 
when they had heard thi&, said, this is an hard say- 
ing, who can bear it? &c. and Jesus said, doth this of. 
fend you? But there are some of you that believe 
not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they 
were that believed notj and who should betray 
him." 

Now, here are many disciples, who, of course, 
were baptized persons, that did not believe. And 
we are told that ''Jesus kneiv from the beginning^'* 
that they believed not. They therefore never had 
believed; and consequently were not believers at the 
time of their baptism. And they never had faith 
afterwards; for we read, ''they went back and walked 
no more with him.'^'' 

In further proof, it may be observed, that of all 



114 

the thousands that Christ baptized before his death 
from "Jerusalem and the region round about," of 
them, on the day of Pentecost, there were to be 
found hilt one hundred and twenty disciples, until 
the conversion of the three thousand. Where were 
they? Had so many thousand true believers, with 
one consent, made shipwreck of faith? No, reader; 
they had been struck with the splendor of his mira- 
cles, they offered themselves as disciples, were en- 
tered into his school by baptism; — but disliking af- 
terwards his spiritual teachings, and the simplicity 
of his rehgion, they ''went back.^^ It is much ea- 
sier to enter the church of Christ as disciples, by 
baptism, than to perform those solemn, spiritual and 
important duties to which we are introduced by 
taking this badge of discipleship. 

From what we have written above, it will be ga- 
thered, that, we consider all as fit subjects for bap- 
tism, who credit the gospel message, are willing to 
receive Christ as their Saviour, and assume the re- 
sponsibilities of Christianity. T was informed lately 
by a minister of the old Baptist church, that a cer- 
tain Dr. T , who I am told is one of Mr. Camp- 
bell's preachers, has been engaged lately re-baptiz- 
ing the members of the old Baptist church, who, 



115 

years ago, received what is called "believers^ bap' 
tism,^^ They received believers' baptism before. 
What are they receiving now? I suppose the Dr. 
is baptizing them "for the remission of sins." 
Query — is not this reversing the order of Christian 
experience? or tacitly confessing that they were de- 
ceived before, and only had a false hope? I pre- 
sume they repented, believed, and w^ere baptized 
upon an experience of grace. And now do they go 
back? If they were baptized before, according to 
3Ir. C's "law of baptism,'^'' pray v/hat law are they 
now baptized under? Has Dr. T , in "expound- 
ing the ancient gospel" to them, added a supplement 
to the law? This reminds me of the case of a mem- 
ber of the Baptist church, not one hundred miles 
from this, who has received baptism three different 
times. Do men who read their bibles imagine, that 
they find a "thus saith the Lord/' for giving Chris- 
tian baptism to any man more than once? It is tri- 
fling with God's ordinance, and has as little authori- 
ty from God's word, as from common sense. In the 
close, suflTer me to repeat the language of Dr. A. 
Clarke: — "The repetition of Christian baptism I be- 
lieve to be profane.'''^ 

Let us all who have been solemnly dedicated in 
11* 



116 

baptism to God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
recollect that "we are debtors to keep the whole 
law." And may God, whose we are, "send us help 
from his sanctuary, and strengthen us out of Zion," 
that we may walk worthy of our high, holy, and 
heavenly calling. 

Mode of Baptism. 

On this part of the subject I think Mr. Broaddus's 
motto or text a very unfortunate one, as he cannot 
show any analogy betweea the detailed directions 
given to Moses for building the tabernacle, and the 
casual or accidental manner in which baptism is 
mentioned in the New Testament. For if God had 
given as specific directions for baptizing as he did 
anciently for making the tabernacle, it would not 
have been necessary for Mr. B. to labor through 
forty-two pages to show the pattern given for bap- 
tism. He says, (Ser. p. 6,) that he selected that 
motto "a5 suggesting the necessity of a rigid ad' 
herence to the expressed will of God, especially in 
relation to institutions,'^'^ Sfc>; and then proceeds to 
assert a fanciful distinction between what he calls 
^^moral and positive requirements,'' and says "the 
manner of performing a moral obligation may be 



117 

perfectly indifferent; but declares it is not so with 
^'positive institutions." Unfortunately for Mr. B. 
he has not even attempted to furnish a single proof 
from God's word in support of this view of positive 
institutes and moral duties. To be sure he quotes 
bishop Hoadley in proof. But I cannot perceive that 
the bishop's words sustain Mr. B's position. Mr. 
B. says 'positive institutions;^ the bishop says '^posi- 
five duties. ^^ Now positive duties may be institu- 
tions, or they may not. If Mr. B. had been so good 
as to tell where this saying of the bishop's is to be 
found, we should have been better able to tell wheth- 
er the words will bear that kind of application. So 
far as we can perceive, the evidence is not to the 
point, but to be proved. Mr. B. says on the same 
page, "we may expect to find the word of God very 
explicit on the subject of positive institutions," and 
yet his distinction is unsupported by a single text of 
Scripture. I enter my dissent from his starting po- 
sition, relative to positive institutions, because it 
stands opposed to facts. 1 . Circumcision was a posi- 
tit^e institute, — and can any man show any detailed 
explicit direction about the manner of performing the 
rite? 2. The sacrament of the Lord'^s supper is a 
positive institute. — Do the scriptures give specific 



118 

directions about the manner of attending to that? It 
was first celebrated in the night, in a recHning pos- 
ture, with unleavened bread, in an upper room, 6lc. 
&C.5 and yet what intelligent Christian supposes that 
these things are any more than mere circumstances ^ 
or that they are necessary to the acceptable celebra- 
tion of that supper. Do our Baptist brethren cele- 
brate it at night? or with unleavened bread? And 
would not Mr. B. himself as soon receive the sacra- 
ment of the Lord's supper on the Lord's day, in the 
house of God, as on Thursday night, in an upper 
room of a private house? I know there are super- 
stitious people who regard a mere circumstance in a 
sacrament, as a matter of great moment. And so 
there were those of old who thouo^ht more of "tith- 
ing minf^ than they did of the '^love of God,'^'' 

Let our Baptist friends apply their own practice 
with regard to the sacrament of the Lord's supper, 
to the principle which Mr. B. lays down with regard 
to '^positive institations,''^ and they will see a great 
want of agreement between his principles and their 
practice. And say, candid reader, is the institution 
of baptism more important than that which repre- 
sents "his broken body," and "his shed blood"^^ — and 
shows forth the Lord's death till his coming again? 



119 

Why, then, this insisting on a '^pattern" for baptism, 
when no man can show in God's word a ''pattern''^ 
for the sacrament of the Lord's supper? Bread and 
wine, are spoken of for the one, and water as the ele- 
ment for the observance of the other. And although 
Mr. B. says, page 27, *'The word of God knows 
nothing for baptism but immersion? I as unhesitating- 
ly declare, that the word of God speaks of baptism, 
where immersion was utterly out of the question. 
Now, candid reader, I have just placed my assertion 
along side of Mr, B''sy hoping that you will receive 
neither the one or the other in this matter without 
proof. The proof I hope to be able to give you in 
the following pages: 

Mr. B. commences on the mode, by finding fault 
with the translators — for leaving the Greek terms 
untranslated; giving them an English termination, 
instead of translating them Immerse, Immersed, Im- 
mersion^ &;c. And both in the Strictures and Ser- 
mon, king James, the bishops, and translators, are 
treated without ceremony. 

The impartial reader will judge, whether it is 
likely that the king, the bishops, and forty-seven 
translators would form a conspiracy against the 
truth; and give to the world a translation that did 



120 

not express fully what riiey believed to be the sense 
of the original term baptizo. I would ask Mr. B., 
who prevented the Latin and French translators 
from translating the original, so far as to favor im- 
mersion only? And why he did not furnish evidence 
that Dr. George Campbell in his translation of the 
gospels — or the great Dutch Reformer, Martin 
Luther, in his translation of the bible, has translated 
the original differently from king James's transla- 
tors? — for he says, Ser. p. 29, that both Dr. Camp- 
bell and Luther held the original term, as meaning 
immersion or dipping only. To be sure, Mr. B. 
says, that Luther calls John the Baptist, "John the 
Dipper," and gives what he considers the Germaa 
of Luther's Testament — "Johannes der Taufer" — 
which Mr. B. (the translator) renders "John the 
Dipper." Reader, I do not pretend to be able to 
translate German, but I strongly suspect, that this 
gentleman has hit as wide of the truth Aerc, as in 
making baptizo mean immersion only. A friend of 
mine, who understands and speaks the German, in- 
forms me, that the English of 'Johannes der Taufer'* 
is John the Baptist; and that the German for Dip- 
per or Immerser is not ^'•Taufer ^'^ but "Tuncker;'* 
hence the name of that sect of Christians called 



121 

^^Tunckers,'^^ or vulgarly ^'Dunkardsj'^^ who baptize 
candidates by dipping them three times. 

The translators, in retaining the original word, 
in the translation, only followed what had been the 
general practice; for even as far back as the second 
century, the author of the Peshito, an old Syriac 
version of the New Testament^ the oldest version ex- 
tant, although the Syriac has a word which signifies 
to plunge, dip, immerse, has never used that word in 
the translation to denote baptism, Prof» Stewart, p. 
78; again — that the precise idea of immersion, can- 
not apply to baptizing, or that it does not appear 
that the words baptize and baptism, would be pro- 
perly rendered by the words immerse, immersion, 
we may safely conclude from the following conside- 
ration; the earliest Latin translators did not find the 
Greek words properly represented by mergo, imraer- 
go, immersio; although these words properly signi- 
fied to immerse, immersion, and were commonly so 
used in the Latin language. They saw there was a 
meaning to the Greek word, which their word de- 
noting immersion did not fairly represent. And this 
was at a time, too, when there were no controversies 
on the subject; and at a time, too, if we believe the 
Baptists, when every person baptized was immersed. 



122 

Yet the Latin translators, if the Baptist system be 
correct, must first have left a word untranslated^ for 
which they had terms in every respect correspond- 
ing, and appropriate. And secondly, they must have 
done this with the rite of baptism continually before 
their eyes, performed by immersion, on account of 
which they would be the more inexcusable. But 
these things are not so. They found the words em- 
ployed in a ceremonial sense; they therefore retained 
the original words themselves^ leaving to the insti- 
tution itself to make known its mode* They there- 
fore Latinize the Greek words, and give us baptizOf 
baptisma, and baptismus. However, for doing so, 
they had high authority; the authority or example 
of the Holy Spirit; and that, too, in a similar case. 
The Hebrew word, pesach, is retained by the in- 
spired writers of the New Testament, in the Greek 
word pascha. The Latins latinize the same word. 
Prof. Elliot, pages 81, 82. These cases are parallel, 
one referring to the institute of the Passover, and 
the other to the institute of Baptism. 

But Mr. B. tells us, that Dr. Carson, a Baptist 
writer, says that ^'Baptizo, in the whole history of 
the Greek language, has but one meaning. It not 
only signifies to dip or immerse^ but it never has any 



123 

other meaning,'''^ Ser. page 28. Mark that, candid 
reader, as I shall, in the course of the argument, 
place John the Baptist, St. Peter and St. Paul, 
all against this Dr. Carson!! At present, however, 
I shall only place one Doctor against another. Dr. 
Adam Clarke, Comm'y. Matt, iii, 6, asks, "Were 
the people dipped or sprinkled?'''' for it is certain 
hapto and baptizo mean both." 'When Greek 
meets Greek, then is the tuo^ of war.' As these 
Doctors disagree, I shall call in other witnesses pres- 
ently. Perhaps, reader, you are ready to ask me, 
if this is the same Dr. Clarke quoted by Mr. B. 
(Stric. page 15,) in support of immersion, as the ex- 
clusive mode? Yes, identically the same.. Mr. B. 
I perceive, has left the Doctor out of his cloud of 
witnesses, in his Sermon. I suppose he began to 
suspect he had not treated the Doctor very fairly in 
the first publication. But it may be that he may 
wish to suggest, that Dr. Clarke was a sprinkler, 
like the king, bishops, and translators, and that his 
account of the matter was influenced by his creed, 
or practice of baptizing. Very good; and Dr. Car- 
son was a dipper, — his criticism no doubt was in- 
fluenced by his practice in baptizing; — so in this, at 

least, they are about equal. Which of the Doctors 
12 



124 

was the greater scholar, and consequently best pre- 
pared to judge, I shall not attempt to decide; I leave 
that to the reader. 

Dr. Carson, however, has raade a concession on 
this subject, which will go a great way in destroying 
the weight of his testimony. While he contends that 
baptizo always signifies to immerse, he acknowledges 
that ''all the lexicographers and commentators are 
against him in that opinion.^^ Carson Bap. page 79 
as quoted by Dr. Miller. How far the confidence 
which, in the face of this acknowledgment he ex 
presses that they are all ivrong^ and that his inter 
pretation alone is right, is either modest or well 
founded, must be left to the judgment of the impar 
tial reader. 

Mr. B. says that "Professor Stuart, as a Biblical 
critic, is perhaps not excelled by any man in the 
United States;" — and this critic says of Dr. Carson, 
"He lays down some very adventurous positions, in 
respect to one meaning, and one only^ of words; 
which, as it seems to me, every lexicon on earth con- 
tradicts^ and always must contradict." Stuart on the 
Mode of Baptism, page 100. So much for Rev. A. 
Carson and his translation of baptizo. 

One more remark relative to the translators of the 



125 

common version. — It is not only unchristian, to tram- 
ple upon the ashes of dead men, by impugning their 
motives and misrepresenting their conduct, — but it is 
ungenerous to charge them and the bishops with 
making a translation to favor sprinHing, when half 
the evidence, at least, which the Baptists adduce to 
favor immersion, is drawn from the manner in which 
these same translators have rendered the Greek 
prepositions, — in Jordan — out of the water, &;c. 
When, if they had indulged any design to deceive, 
they might have given them fairly, a different render- 
ing. Here, as the Baptists will tell you, we have a 
translation, partly supporting sprinMing, and partly 
against it. Surely, candid reader, these same 47 
translators, who produced the common version in 
1613, were either very stupid, or very honest, I 
think the latter. 'Judge ye what I say.' 

I shall next take some notice of Mr. B's list of Pe- 
dobaptist witnesses. Ser. p. 30, 31, and Stric. p. 
14, 15, 16. Some of these witnesses I shall beobhg- 
ed to pass by, as I have not their works at hand to 
refer to. The reader may be able to judge of the 
fairness, or rather unfairness, with which Mr. Booth 
and Mr. Broaddus has treated them all, from a spe- 
cimen or two which we expect to give. 



126 

The reader will bear in mind, that Mr. B's prop- 
osition, which he wishes to sustain, is, that 'immers- 
ion, or* dipping, is the only proper mode,' or that 
'baptize means to dip on/i/.'— -Stric. p. 15. And he 
brings these Pedobaptist witnesses into court to 
prove this. We shall see, whether he allows them, 
in his hands, to tell the whole truth in the case. I 
hope he will not do, as some people do, in quoting 
the words of Christ, as a witness for unconditioned 
perseverance^ viz, 'Of all whom thou hast given me, 
Ihave lost none;' — so far, the witness seems to sup- 
port the position; but suffer him to speak on, — 'but 
the son of perdition.^ Ah, this puts quite another 
face upon the text; as I hope to do, upon the testimo- 
my of at least, some of these witnesses. Attend to 
me patiently, gentle reader, I am in part, pleading 
the cause of dead men, represented as having lived 
and died inconsistent ^"^ and who are not here to speak 
for themselves, but whose record is on high. I shall 
begin with Dr. A. Clarke. Mr. B. in his Strictures, 
page 15, after quoting part of a. sentence from Dr. 
Clarke's Commentary on Romans vi, 4, says, 'I do 
think I have proved beyond all question, that baptizo 
means to immerse, and nothing else.' 'It has but 
one meaning:~these learned men knew it, and their 



127 

candor forced them to acknowledge it.' Reader, 
does Dr. Clarke acknowledge it? hear him fully on 
Romans viy 4, "It is probable that the apostle here 
alludes to the mode of administering baptism by im- 
mersion; 1 say it is probable — but not absolutely 
certain that he does so, as some imagine; for in the 
next verse, our being incorporated into Christ by bap* 
tism^ is also denoted by our being planted or graft- 
ed together in the likeness of his death: and Noah's 
ark floating upon the water, and sprinkled by the 
rain from heaven^ is a figure corresponding to bap- 
tism^ 1 Peter iii, 20, 21; but neither of these gives us 
the same idea of the outward form as burying. We 
must be careful, therefore, not to lay too much stress 
on such a circumstance." Does this prove Mr. B's 
position? I think not. He has taken great liber- 
ties with this witness, — first he mutilates the sen- , 
tence^ — then ^ives it as a whole ^ — putting a period 
in the place of Dr. C's comma, — and then puts the 
words baptize and immersion, in italics; and the 
word probable, which the Dr. purposely italicised 
twice in the note, Mr. B. does not emphasise at 
all. It is bad enough to take such liberties with 
living men. 

Mr. Wesley is the next witness we shall call. Mr. 
12* 



128 

B. has treated him with as little candor as he has 
the Dr. In his Strictures, p. 15, he attempts to 
quote Mr. W. on Rom. vi, 4, and mutilates the sen- 
tence; puts a period were Mr. W. has none, and pre- 
fixes to the note these words — 'It seems the part of can- 
dor to confess^^ when Mr. W. has no such words in 
his note. It is a pity that Mr. B. should have lost 
sight of his own candor in attempting to find that 
quality in Mr. W's notes. 

Mr. Wesley's commentary, on a parallel passage 
in Col. ii, 12, is often quoted by Baptist preachers, 
to prove that he favored immersion only. I have 
heard them do this myself. Although that note is 
not in Mr. B's printed sermon, I will give it to the 
reader to disabuse his mind of any erroneous impres- 
sion on that subject. This note when made to speak 
in favor of immersion, is quoted thus — 'The ancient 
manner of baptizing by immersion is manifestly al- 
luded to here.' This is only part of the sentence 
used by Mr. Wesley, and one word left out of that. 
The note, when fairly quoted, proves nothing for the 
Baptists. Mr. W's words are as follows; "The an- 
cient manner of baptizing by immersion is as mani- 
festly alluded to here as the other manner of bap- 
tizing by sprinkling or pouring of water is; Heb. 



129 

X, 22. But no stress is laid upon the age of the 

baptized, or the manner of performing it, in one or 
the other place,'' &c. Candid reader, does either of 
these passages contain the evidence that Mr. Wes- 
ley acknowledges immersion as the only mode? 'I 
speak as unto wise men.' 

Mr. B., Ser. p. 30, quotes two cases from Mr. 
Wesley's Journal to prove that he 'preferred im- 
mersion^^ neither of which proves any such thing. 
The first is the case of a child which he baptized at 
eleven days old, according to the 'rule of the church 
of England,' by immersion; and as Mr. W. happened 
to mention that the child began to recover from the 
time of its baptism, Mr. B. infers that by mentioning 
that circumstance Mr. Wesley intended to recom- 
mend immersion. I infer on the contrary, that he 
meant to recommend infant baptism. 

The other case is the case of Mr. Parker's child, 
in Georgia, which Mr. W. refused to baptize because 
its mother refused to let it be dipped, assigning, as 
his reason that the Rubric of his church required it to 
be dipped, unless it were weak or unwell. — Wesley's 
Journal, Feb. and May, 1736. This was three years 
before Mr. Wesley formed any Society; while he was 
a very young man, and was a priest in the church 



130 

of England. He of course, as a conscientious man, 
felt himself bound to regard the Rubric of his church. 
He gives this as his reason, and utters no objection 
to the child being baptized by sprinkling or pouring, 
by another person. According to Mr. B's own show 
ing, the grand jury thought Mr. W. justifiable in 
view of the Rubric. 

Mr. W» could not be supposed to have understood 
the subject of baptism then as perfectly as he did 
when he wrote his Treatise on that subject more 
than ticenty years aftenvards. In that Treatise he 
says — "And as there is no clear proof of dipping, in 
Scripture, so there is very probable proof of the 
contrary. It is true, we read of being buried with 
Christ in baptism. But nothing can be inferred from 
such a figurative expression. Nay, if it held ex- 
actly, it would make as much for sprinkling as for 
plunging; since in burying, the body is not plunged 
through the substance of the earth, but rather earth 
is poured or sprinkled upon it.'' Works, vol. 6, p. 
13. And finally this witness says — "The greatest 
scholars^ and most proper judges in the matter, testi- 
fy that the original term translated baptize, means 
not dipping, but washing or cleansing" Does this 
prove Mr. B's assertion true or false? He says Mr. 



131 

Wesley 'preferred immersion^ and he would have re- 
stored immersion if he could.' 1 think the reader will 
see a very great want of fairness in the manner in 
which the gentleman has treated Ptir. Wesley. As 
I am now on the testimony of Mr. W., it may not 
be amiss to remark, that the attempt which Mr. B. 
makes, in his Sermon, to prove that Mr. W. held 
baptismal regeneration^ and held even worse views 
than Mr. A. Campbell, I think unworthy a serious 
notice. 

His attempt to throw contempt on the Episcopal- 
ians, Presbyterians, Methodists and otliers, by at- 
tributing to them the doctrine of baptismal regener- 
ation^ is one of those stratagems used to mislead the 
mind of the reader; a part of that finesse, which is 
used for the purpose of proselytism — a tub to decoy 
the whale, until he can be brought within the reach of 
the ecclesiastical harpoon — an attempt to prove that 
he is right by proving that others are wrong. 

The next witness I shall call upon in the list of 
Mr. B's witnesses, is Professor Stuart. He produces 
the testimony of the Professor to prove immersion as 
the exclusive mode. Ser. p. 32. He quotes him 
thus: "Both of these words (6apfoaud baptizo) mean 
^o dip^ plunge or immerge into any thing liquid." 



132 

The Professor says, (Stuart on the Mode of Bap- 
tism, p. 29 and 81:) — "There is then no absolute 
certainty from usage, that the word (baptizo) when 
applied to designate the rite of baptism^ means, of 
course, to immerge or plunge. It may mean wash- 
ing; possibly (but not probably) it may mean copi- 
ously moistening or bedewing; because words coming 
from the common root (bap) are applied in both these 
senses as we have seen~ above. "No injunction is 
any where given in the New Testament, respecting 
the manner in which this rite shall be performed. If 
there be such a passage, let it be produced. This 
cannot be done. But it will doubtless be said, that 
'the manner of the rite is involved in the word itself, 
which is used to designate it, and that therefore this 
is as much a matter of command as the rite itself.' 
To this I answer that it would prove a great deal too 
much." Again Professor Stuart says, p. 98 — *^If 
you say. The classical use of the word abundantly 
justifies the construction 1 put upon it, my reply is, 
that classical usage can never be very certain in re- 
spect to a word in the New Testament. Who does 
not know that a multitude of Greek words here re- 
ceive their coloring and particular meanings from 
the Hebrew, and not from the Greek classics?" The 



133 

sentiment of the Professor is confirmed by the prac- 
tice of the apostle Paul, who well understood both 
the Hebrew and Greek; for in Heb. vi, 2, he 
speaks of the 'doctrine of baptism;'^ and in ix, 10, of 
'divers baptisms;'^ in both of which places, he doubt- 
less applies the word to those ceremonial washings 
or purifications used among the Jews, which, he 
says in v. 13, 'were performed by sprinkling the 
unclean.' And we remark here, without fear of suc- 
cessful contradiction, that wherever n.n administra- 
tor and a subject is found under the Jewish regula- 
tions, or Old Testament arrangements, the one ad- 
ministering, and the other receiving, any of those 
'divers baptisms,' the mode was never by immersion. 
It is true, the Jews washed or bathed themselves and 
their clothes; but these washings they performed 
naked, and in private, and never received them from 
the hands of an administrator. If the reader will 
refer to Num. xix, 17, 21, he will seethe ceremony 
detailed to which the apostle refers in Heb. ix, 13, 
and calls it a baptism; and he will see that the hys- 
sop was dipped in running water and the person was 
sprinkled: — it is worthy of remark also, that among 
the ancient heathens, purification was often performed 
by sprinkling water upon the unclean, with a brancli 



134 

of olive, or other tree. See the account in Potter^s 
Greek Antiquities, p. 200; and an instance also in 
VirgiPs JEneid vi, 229. 

The reader will judge from the testimony we have 
adduced from Prof. Stuart, whether Mr. B. has 
quoted him fairly. 

That the witness finds immersion practiced in 'a/i- 
cient times'^ not by Hhe^rs^ church,^ as Mr. B. has it^ 
Ser. p. 32, is true, but he finds equal evidence, he says,^ 
for baptizing men and women naked, and that by 
dipping them three times, &;c. He says, 'revolting 
as this custom was, yet it is as certain as testimony 
can make it;' p. 75. 

Now, candid reader, I leave you to judge, how 
- much reliance is to be placed on the mutilated tes- 
timonies from Pedobaptist writers, adduced by Mr. 
B. You can judge of the balance, from those I have 
examined. I will close this part of the subject with 
a quotation from that clear and conclusive writer, 
Peter Edwards, who was himself, for a number of 
years, a Baptist preacher, and who discovered the 
weakness of the arguments ofthe Baptists, while read- 
ing Mr. Booth's book in favor of their views. He 
says, (speaking of Mr. Booth's eighty witnesses, to 
which Mr. Broaddus refers,) 'He quotes a number 



135 

of authors, who, as he says, understood the term 
'baptize' to mean immersion, pouring and sprink- 
ling; and these quotations he calls concessions. 
Concessions of what? That the word meant immers- 
ion only? If so, he made them concede what they 
never did concede, and what they had no thought of 
conceding. It is a shame to abuse the living or the 
dead, and it is a bad cause that requires it; I doubt 
whether one of the eighty abused critics, was on his 
side.'— Edwards, p. 159, 160. 

We shall now proceed to notice the history of the 
ordinance, as we find it in the New Testament; and 
see, whether the facts therein detailed favor our 
views, or the views of the Baptists. We shall first 
remark upon an allusion of the apostle Paul to a case 
of baptism of men, women, and children, which oc- 
curred in an early period of the history of the church; 
even before what Mr. Booth calls, the 'Ecclesiastico- 
Political Constitution, had any existence. The 
case is recorded in Ex. xiv, 19, 22, and is referred 
to by the apostle, 1 Cor. x, 2 — "And were all bap- 
tized unto Moses, in the cloud and in the sea;" and 
yet Moses says — ^"They went into the midst of the 
sea upon dry ground,^^ Here I put the apostle Paul 

against Mr. Broaddusand Dr. Carson, as I promised 
13 



136 

to do. They say "the scriptures know nothing for 
baptism but immersion." Tiie apostle being judge, 
here were six hundred thousand men, besides women 
and children, all baptized while they were on 'dry 
ground^ and all 'dry shod,^ 

The reader must judge between these gentlemen 
and the apostle. But I shall be told that they were 
baptized 'in a figure,' as they were surrounded. It is 
dangerous to be making figures to destroy the plain, 
obvious meaning of scripture. And moreover, they 
appear not to have been surrounded, for there was 
dry land behind them to the shore, and dry land be- 
fore them to the opposite shore; and the cloud as a 
pillar of fire between them and the Egyptians; so 
they only had water on their right and left, as two 
walls. However many 'figures' there are in the 
passage, there is no figure of immersion or dipping 
in the case. The Holy Spirit has seen fit to give us 
the mode in which these people 'were baptized unto 
Moses.' In Psalms Ixxvii, 16, 17, where the Psalm- 
ist refers to God's having 'led his people by the 
hand of Moses and Aaron,' he has these remarkable 
words, — "The waters saw thee, O God, the waters 
saw thee; they were afraid; the depths also were 
troubled. The clouds poured out water." That 



I 



137 

the passage of Israel through the Red Sea is refer- 
red to here, no man of candor will doubt, who reads 
the passage with attention. In answer to the ques- 
tion, how were they baptized in the sea? we remark, 
— as the action of a natural agent, the wind was em- 
ployed to make a passage for them, the extreme agi- 
tation of the waters by it, would occasion a mist or 
spray, by this, as they passed along, they would be 
sprinkled; and this I presume is what the apostle 
means when he says, they were baptized in, or by 
the sea. But if our Baptist brethren be dissatisfied 
with this explanation, it is impossible to inake the 
history bend to their views: the Israelites could not 
be dipped, plunged or overwhelmed in the sea, if the 
statement be true, that they went through it on dry 
ground. Here is another indisputable proof that 
baptism cannot mean immersion only. 

The only immersion on that occasion, was the 
overwhelming of the Egyptians in the deep, 'who 
sank like lead in the mighty waters,' and who were 
seen not again, until they floated up, upon the shores 
of the Red Sea, as evidences of Jehovah's wrath. 

But we shall be told that the baptism of Israel to 
Moses, was 'not Christian baptism.' This is grant- 
ed, and yet that does not invalidate the argument 



138 

drawa from tlie case, — because the greatest scholar, 
and best critic of all the apostles, St. Paul, calls it 
baptism. But Mr. B. says, 'The scriptures know 
nothing for baptism but immersion,' There he is 
fairly at issue with the apostle Paul. I will not in- 
sult the reader's piety and good sense, by even inti- 
mating which of the witnesses is most entitled to 
credit. 

Most of the evidence which our Baptist friends 
bring to support their mode of baptism, is brought 
from what is said of John's baptizing in Jordan, at 
Enon; from the case of the eunuch, baptized by 
Philip; and from the passages in Rom. vi, 4, and 
Col. ii, 12, where the apostle speaks of being buried 
with Christ by baptism, &;c. 

We might refuse, if we thought it necessary, all 
the evidence brought from John's baptism; as it is 
clear from the scriptures, and especially from Acts 
xix, — that 'JohrCs baptismP was essentially different 
from the 'Christian baptism.^ Of this truth, the 
celebrated Robert Hall, of the Baptist church, was 
fully convinced; as the reader may see by a refer- 
ence to his works, vol. 1, p. 372, 376. 

But as Baptist preachers and people, do not agree 
among themselves with regard to John's baptism, and 



139 

as we wish to allow them all the evidence they can 

with any fairness claim, we shall not avail ourselves 

of the advantage above alluded to. 

It is said that John baptized *in Jordan,' also 'in 

the wilderness;' — 'in Bethabara, beyond Jordan;' — 

and 'in Enon near to Salem;' &c. It is allowed on 

all hands, that the Greek particles, rendered in^ into, 

out of, 4(*c., have such latitude of meaning, and are 

translated so variously, that nothing certain can be 

inferred in this controversy, from their use. The 

first sense which Parkhurst in his Greek Lexicon 

gives to ^'Apo''^ is, from, 'He came up from the 

water.' And that sense is given it in this text, — 

"Who hath warned you to flee from (not out of) the 

wrath of God." And "eis" has the sense of, to or 

unto^ in the following scriptures, viz. in Matt, xv, 24, 

— 'I am not sent but imto (not into) the lost sheep 

of the house of Israel.' Rom. x, 10, — 'With the 

hearty man believeth unto (not into) righteousness.' 

Matt, iii, 11, — 'I indeed baptize you with water unto 

(not into) repentance;' and Matt, xvii, 27, — 'Go thou 

to the sea (not into) and cast a hook,' &c. 

The preposition, "En'^ rendered in Jordan, is in 

the New Testament, 150 times rendered, tvith; and 

more than 100 times rendered at. And thepassaaje 
13^ 



140 

would be fairly rendered at Jordan, or with the 
water of Jordan. And with regard to the eunuch, 
they went down to the water, and came up from the 
water, would be as correct a rendering as into and 
out of. So we see, that the argument of the Bap- 
tists drawn from the Greek particles, evaporates at 
once, and we are left to deter mme the mode of bap- 
tism from other evidence. Mr. B. seems to think, 
that to discuss these particles is a 'small business,' 
but concludes that the translators were ^honesf in 
translating them, and that 'in their primary signifi- 
cation they all favor immersion.' This is a sum- 
mary mode, such as we have on p. 21 of his Sermon; 
where, although he rejects and ridicules 'the testi- 
mony of the fathers,' yet declares — "I am perfectly 
satisfied that the preponderance of that testimony — 
is most decidedly in our favor." He thinks that John's 
being at Jordan and Enon, is conclusive evidence that 
he baptized the people by immersion. Then I reply, 
that Annanias baptizing Saul of Tarsus, in a private 
house, — and Peter baptizing Cornelius, and others 
in a private house, is conclusive evidence that nei 
vther Saul nor Cornelius were immersed; for, reader 
did you ever hear or know of a Baptist preacher im 
mersing people in a private house. On the contrary 



141 

I have both heard and read, of persons, being bap- 
tized by pouring, at creeks and rivers. 

It cannot be shown we presume, that one of those 
who received John's baptism, were in the water as 
much as ancle deep; as we shall now proceed to 
show. ^'The chief weight of many arguments are 
owing to our inattention to the differences of times, 
places, circumstances, manners, <&c.; modernize, and 
lay the scene of John's ministry in this country, as 
most 1 presume do; and then examine your ideas, 
and see what truth there is in them. You provide 
him with a large church or meeting house, in a 
large town, or populous country place; he preaches, 
his congregation is affected, and at the close of the 
service, they request him to baptize them; he 
marches at the head of them to a river, for this pur- 
pose. You never see ministers going with either 
adults, or infants, to a river to sprinkle them, but 
you see ministers, who call themselves Baptists, 
going down into rivers to immerse people; and you- 
conclude John the Baptist used immersion. John, 
however, did not live in a large town, but in the 
wilderness; he had neither church, nor meeting 
house, to hold the people who resorted to him; the 
scene of his ministry is the side of a river; he 



14i 

preached out of doors. Geographers inform us, that 
the banks of the river Jordan abounded with trees; 
and as the climate was hot, he and his congregation 
would surely take their station under their shade, 
and enjoy the atmosphere, which would be cool, in 
consequence of its vicinity to the water. Now sup- 
pose he used sprinkling, where, under these circum- 
stances, could he so conveniently and agreeably per- 
form it, as in the river just at hand?'' Isaacs on 
Baptism, p, 47. 

^'But why," it is asked, "did John take his sta- 
tion beside a river, or at Enon, where there was 
much water, if it were not for the convenience of 
baptizing?'' I answer — 1st. Because it was a cen- 
tra] situation. — "Then went out to him Jerusalem 
and all Judea, and all the region round about Jor- 
dan.'' As John did not itinerate much, it was im- 
portant to select a situation for the exercise of his 
ministry, at which it would be most convenient for 
the surrounding inhabitants to attend. 2d. When 
we look at the immense numbers who resorted from 
all parts to hear John, it would be absolutely neces- 
sary for him to take his station where there was 
'^muck water^'^ supposing but little was needed for 
baptism. *'Then went out unto him all the land 



143 

of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and all the region 
round about Jordan." Mark v, 4; Matt, iii, 5. 
Make what deductions you wili from these state- 
ments, you cannot make any common sense of the 
words, if you do not suppose the numbers to have 
been very great. They would not all come on foot; 
water would be wanted for drink for the people, for 
culinary purposes, for their various ablutions, and 
for their cattle. And as they flocked in vast num- 
bers to John, many of them, no doubt, had to wait 
for days or weeks before the rite could be adminis- 
tered to them; and during all this time, in the heat 
of Palestine, great quantities of water would be ne- 
cessary for the accommodation of the multitude. In 
our climate, although much cooler, we ahvays select 
a place for camp meetings, when such can be had, 
where there is ''much water. ^^ And we sometimes 
appoint them near rivers, although we expect not 
more than five thousand persons to attend them; yet 
it is not our calculation to immerse one individual of 
the thousands that attend. . 

If the reader will consult 2 Chron. xxxii, 3, 4, he 
will see a case in point. When Sennacherib inva- 
ded this very country where John was preaching 
and baptizing, we read that 'Hhey stopped all the 



144 

fountains, and the brook that ran through the midst 
of the land, saying, why should the kings of Assyria 
come and find much water?^^ It was thought the 
Assyrian army would need much water; but no one 
ever suspected their king intended to baptize them 
in it. No, they wanted it for other purposes; and 
so did the thousands who attended the ministry of 
John, at Jordan and Enon. 

The reader should bear in mind that while Christ, 
and the twelve, and the seventy, were going about 
into the towns, villages, &c., John was comparatively 
local in his ministry, which made the multitude 
greater, and required them to come a greater dis- 
tance; and often to remain longer to accomplish the 
purpose of their visit. The people came to John; 
Christ and his ministers went to the people. 
Again we say, it is utterly incredible that John could 
have immersed the vast multitudes that came to him; 
besides doing the preaching and answering the ques- 
tions put to him, and (according to the practice of 
modern Baptists,) receiving and judging of the ex.- 
perience of the candidates. I suppose they will not 
deny, that they gave in an experience to John, espe- 
cially as Mr. Benedict, in his history of the Baptists, 
calls John their '^ancient brother^^'' 



145 

Robert Hall felt the weight of this objection to im- 
mersion; drawn from the number to be baptized. 
Hence he says, — ^'It is by no means certain, howev- 
er, that John was the only person, who performed 
that ceremony; indeed, when v/e consider the 'prodi- 
gious multitudes that flocked to him, the "inhabi- 
tants of Jerusalem, Judea, and all the region round 
about Jordan," it seems scarcely practicable; he 
n:K)st probably employed coadjutorSj" d:c. Hall's 
Works, vol. 1. p. 361. 

Now I suppose, reader, that I have as good a 
right as Mr. Hall, to find a solution to this difficulty. 
The scriptures do not say one word about a single 
coadjutor employed by the Baptist. I account for 
his being able to baptize the "prodigious multi- 
tudes,'^'' as Mr. H. calls them, on another principle, 
viz: he administered the ordinance by spinnhling or 
pouring. This was Mr. Wesley's view of it. See 
his notes on Matt. iii. 6 — "It seems," says he, "that 
they stood in ranks on the edge of the river, and 
John, passing along before them, cast water on their 
heads or faces, by which means he might baptize 
many thousands in a day.'' 

It is not supposed that John exercised his minis- 
try more than twelve or eighteen months, and yet 



146 

at a moderate calculation he must have baptized one 
million of people, for Mr. B. supposes, Ser. p. 35 — = 
That Jerusalem alone "contained a million of peo- 
ple;'' then take ''Judea, and the region round about 
"Jordan," &.C., and allow, that one-half of the in- 
habitants received his baptism, w^hich we think not 
unlikely; then we ask during how many hours in the 
day could any man preach, and stand in the water, 
for the purpose of baptizing by immersion? We 
will admit for the sake of argument, that he could 
endure this labor six hours each day, for eighteen 
months. And say, that he baptized as expeditiously 
as the gentleman in Culpepper did, of whom Mr. B. 
speaks, Ser. p. 35, — "Who baptized seventy-five 
persons very decently in twenty-five minutes.'' I 
say suppose all this, and when he had accomplished 
his eighteen months work, at the rate of one thous- 
and and eighty each day, he would have given the 
ordinance to a little upwards of half a million. What 
Mr. B. says about its taking "7io more time to bap- 
tize by immersiorij than by sprinkling,''^ Ser. p. 35, 
utterly astonishes me. Can you think, gentle read- 
er, that this carries upon its face the appearance of 
probability? Again, John as the son of a Jewish 
priest, would most likely use water in the way in 



147 

which it was commonly used among the Jews, i. e. 
by sprinkling. And if it be said that "John's bap- 
tism was from heaven;" I reply, so were the divers 
baptisms among the Jews. Heb. ix, 10, 13. And 
as the Jewish priests entered upon their work at 
thirty years of age, so did John. And using, like 
them, an application of water to the body, as an em- 
blem of moral purity; it is left to any impartial judg- 
ment, whether he is most rationally supposed to have 
plunged men under the water, (a thing unpractised 
among them,) or whether he only sprinkled or pour- 
ed water on them, a rite divinely instituted^ and 
every day familiarly practised in that church^ 
Towgood on Baptism, p. 104. And to the fact that 
John came as the harbinger of the Messiah, about to 
appear, for whom the Jews were all anxiously look- 
ing; so much so, that they inquired of him "if he 
were the Christ;" — I say, to this fact, may be attrib- 
uted the great and general influx of disciples to 
John. He applied sacramental water to them, and 
bid them repent, reform, and look for, and believe on 
the Messiah, just about to appear, who would apply 
the Holy Ghost to their souls, as he had applied the 
purifying element to their bodies; saying to all the 

people, "I indeed baptize you idth water; he shall 
14 



148 

baptize you toith the Holy Ghost.^^ Here is a clear 
intimation from John himself, that the water was 
applied to the subject^ and not the subject applied to 
the water. 

What John calls, being baptized with the Holy 
Ghost, Matt, iii, 11, Christ calls, being baptized 
with the Holy Ghost, Acts i, 5. And Peter calls it 
being baptized with the Holy Ghost, Acts ii, 16. 
And in Acts xi, 17, 33, it is said to be "poueed 
out'' and "shed fokth.'' And in Acts x, 44, it is 
said, the Holy Ghost fell on them; and also in xi, 
15, Peter says, it fell on them. Now I suppose, 
that the word baptize in the mouth of John the 
Baptist, is equal to the word baptize, in the mouth 
of St. Peter; and equal also to the same word in the 
mouth of Jesus Christ. Here I put, not a lexico- 
grapher, or an army of them, against Dr. Carson 
and Mr. Broaddus, but what is of infinitely more 
weight, (for however great the witness of men may 
be, "the witness of God is greater,") John, Peter, 
and Christ, all against these gentlemen, I hope, 
reader, you will never become so learned, as to de- 
clare that pouring is no baptism, when you have the 
authority of Christ himself, for using the word in the 
sense of pouring, viz: "ye shall be baptized with 



149 

the Holy Ghost, not many days hence." This is 
the prediction of Christ: and it had its fulfilment on 
the day of Pentecost, by the pouring out, and shed- 
DiivG FORTH, of the Spirit upon the Apostles. Now, 
candid reader, was there any thing like immersion 
here? And if John understood the language which 
he used, when speaking of the baptism of the spirit, 
and if the sign is to agree with the thing signified, 
the shadmv with the substance^ how could John give 
w^ater baptism by immersion, when he knew that 
Christ would pour out or shed forth, the Spirit? 
"I speak as unto wise men, judge ye what I say." 

But Mr. B., Ser. p. 39, thinks it very "absurd^' 
to suppose that *nhe manner of the immaterial spirit 
should be represented by the use that is made of a 
material element.'' How absurd — "strange enough 
is the argument" drawn from the pouring out of the 
Spirit. But unfortunately for this gentleman, on the 
very next page he is guilty of this very absurdity. 
Hear him in quoting Ezek. xxxvi, 25 — ''Then will 
/ sprinkle clean water upon you,'' d:c. He says, 
"The allusion is, unquestionably, to those divine in- 
fluences by which men are cleansed from their moral 
defilement." "Divine influences," are they immate- 
rial? or has Mr. B- found f=ome mode of purifying 



150 

men, witliotit the immaterial spirit?~so\ne "divine 
influences," that are not of the Spirit of God? He 
quotes the very text that is against him, and says, 
"God himself is to sprinkle clean water;" and this 
clean water to be applied by sprinkling, represents 
the "divine influences," Mr. B. himself being judge. 
But then it is "absurd'' to represent the ^'immaterial 
sph'it'*'' by the ^'material element water.'' So God 
himself, is represented here as guilty of this "absur- 
dity." For if the question be asked. How will God 
cleanse them from their idols? the answer is, with 
^'clean ivater.'^'^ In what manner will he apply the 
element? the answer is, "I will sprinMe clean water 
upon you." It is strange that men should thus talk, 
not only without book, but against the Book of God. 
In such cases, they demonstrate nothing but their 
own folly, or the weakness and hopelessness of their 
cause. 

The baptism of the Spirit by "pouring," and 

"SHEDDING FORTH,'' and "FALLING UPON,'' &C. haS 

always been very embarrassing to our Baptist 
friends. Mr. B , Ser. p. 39, labors hard to evade 
the matter, by attempting to show that the disci- 
ciples, on the day of Pentecost, were immersed in 
the Spirit, He asks, ''Were they immersed in the 



151 

Spirit, when the Spirit filled the room where they 
were sitting, or were they not? I am wilhng your 
common sense should decide." Here, he will have 
it, that though the Spirit was '^poured," it was 
poured until the room was filled, so that they were 
immersed in it,''^ It is strange, that Christian men 
will persist in tying down the word baptize, to one 
meaning only, — and that at the expense of the word 
of God, and even of common sense. For that he 
has "erred in vision,'' or ^'stumbled in judgment," — 
the reader can clearly see, by a reference to Acts ii. 
Not one word is said there about the Spirit ^'fill- 
ing the house,'^^ nor of its '^'' over whelming the disci- 
ples." The language in Acts ii, 1, 2, is, ''And 
when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they 
were all with one accord in one place. And sud- 
denly there came a sound from heaven as a rush- 
ing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where 
they were sitting. And there appeared unto them 
cloven tongues as of fire, and it sat upon each of 
them. And they were all filled with the Holy 
Ghost." If it is said the house was filled, and they 
were therefore immersed; — the questions may be 
asked, with what was the house filled? with what 

were they immersed? In English, it is expressed 
14* 



152 

by the pronoun ^^it,"— "it filled all the house;'' the 
Greek has no pronoun. Well, what is the antece- 
dent to "if/'' I answer, the word '^sound?^ The 
word in the Greek is, "echos,'' an echo^ a reverbe- 
rating sound. 

So it seems Mr. B. has only erred in vision, so far 
as to mistake a sound, an echo, for the Spirit of God, 
Is then a reverberating sound, surrounding the bo- 
dies of the apostles; and the Spirit of God falling 
upon their hearts, the same thing? the reader can 
judge. 

The somid filled the house, — and, if you please, 
though it sounds rather odd,^ — they were immersed 
in the sound. But this is not to be confounded with 
the cloven tongues, or the Holy Spirit, mentioned in 
the following verses. ''They were all filled with 
the Holy Ghost." The sound filled the place; 
the Spirit filled the persons; the sound was with- 
out them; the Spirit was within them. 

The old prophet did not commit such a blunder, as 
to mistake the sound of wind, for the voice of the 
Spirit. "And behold, the Lord passed by, and a 
great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake 
in pieces the rocks, before the Lord; but the Lord 
was not in the wind."— 1 Kings xix, 11. As in 



153 

this case, the wind came before the Lord spake to 
the prophet, in '*a still small voice;'' — so, on the 
day of Pentecost, the rushing^ mighty ivind came 
first, and filled the house, — then the Lord poured 
OUT upon them the Holy Ghost. 

But, granting, for the sake of argument, that the 
Spirit is intended by the sound; the Baptist manner 
of administering the ordinance, is not helped by it. 
For the sound, or Spirit, came down, descending 
upon them. The baptismal element came upon the 
subjects. They did not descend into it. The ele- 
ment was active; the subjects were passive; which 
exactly corresponds with our mode. In the mode of 
Mr. B. this order is completely reversed. The view 
of Mr. Broaddus, on this case, makes against a favo- 
rite notion of many of his Baptist brethren, — viz: 
that the baptism promised by Christ, and given on 
the day of Pentecost, was restricted to the apostles 
as the subjects; — and to the extraordinary or mira- 
culous gifts conferred upon them; — and not to the 
ordinary gift of the Holy Spirit, conferred upon all 
Christians. For if, as he says, "the wind was the 
Spirit,'^'^ then all present were equally immersed with 
the apostles; — and we learn from ver. 15, of the 
preceding chapter, that "the number of the names 



154 

together were about a hundred and twenty.^' "And 
when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they 
were all, with one accord, in one place." ''And 
suddenly there came a sound from heaven,'' dz;c. So 
that they all obtained the extraordinary influences 
of the Spirit. It is not admitted by those who refer 
the baptism of the Spirit to its extraordinary in- 
fluences, that any received it, except the twelve 
apostles; — yet Mr. B's interpretations of the matter, 
give miraculous powers to them all, one hundred 
and twenty in number. Both he and they are wrong, 
for the mind was not the Spirit; — and the baptism 
of the Holy Ghost, is not confined to the apostles: 
for Joel said, ''It shall be poured out upon all 
FLESH," ver. 17; — and Peter said, "The promise is 
to all, as many as the Lord our God shall call,''^ ver. 
39. Reader, no man in his senses, ever supposed, 
that "all flesh,"— "all that the Lord should call," to 
be Christians, were to receive the extraordinary 
gifts of the Holy Ghost. You see, then, with what 
propriety our Baptist friends, attempt to turn into 
ridicule, the practice of Pedobaptists, praying for 
the baptism of the Holy Ghost. "Judge ye what I 
say." 
In every case where the spirit is spoken of, as 



155 

liaviiiw been s'ivcji, it is said to have been 'sued 

FORTH,' or 'rOURED OUT,' OF *CAME ON THE3T,' OF 

'FELL ON ALL TIIE3I, whicli heard the word.' 'On 
the Gentiles, also, was poured out the gift of the 
Holy Ghost." Acts x, 44, 45, — and in xi, 15, 16 — 
Peter says, "And as I began to speak, the Holy- 
Ghost FELL ON THEM, as on US, at the begin- 
ning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, 
how that he said, John indeed baptized with 
water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy 
Ghost;" there is no wind, or sound, said to have 
filled the house of Cornelius, when the Holy Ghost 
was poured out upon the Gentiles. This, notwith- 
standing, Peter calls a baptism of the Holy Ghost, 
by pouring out or falling upon them. 

Query — Did Peter give them water baptism by 
immersion, in full view of the fact, that God had 
just given them spiritual baptism by pouring? It is 
utterly incredible. 

It is enough for me, to be satisfied, that I follow 
the example of him who baptizes with the Holy 
Ghost; that I apply the water to men'^s bodies as he 
applies the Spirit to their souls. Thus a spiritual 
baptism, will be administered in the church to the 
end of time; and this ordinance will be given accord- 



156 

ing to the Pedobaptist mode; for it is written, "I 
wiW pour out my Spirit upon all flesh. ^"^ See Isaacs 
on Baptism, p, 57, 58. 

So much for Mr. B. and his "immersion in the 
Spirit." Again — Most of the cases of baptism re- 
corded in the Acts, furnish strong, not to say, con- 
clusive evidence, that they were not baptized by im- 
mersion, but in some other way. 

I am aware that our Baptist friends have a won- 
derful facility at finding 'streams^'' 'baths,^ Hanks^^ 
'pools,^ 'hogsheads,' iSfc, Ser. p. 35, whenever they 
read of a case of baptism. Unfortunately for their 
cause, however, they very often cannot agree among 
themselves, concerning the means or facilities, for 
giving the ordinance by immersion, in the particu- 
lar case. Hence, when you ask, where were the 
three thousand baptized on the day of Pentecost? 
each sets his imagination to work, to find a baptizing 
place. Mr. B. says, Ser. p. 38, "The city was wa- 
tered by the brook Kidron, and the pools of Siloam 
and Bethesda, which would furnish an abundant sup- 
ply of water." In the ^varm season, the brook Kid- 
ron was generally dry, and travellers say that it is 
dry nine months in the year; and that those 3000 
were baptised in warm weather, is evident from the 



167 

fact, that the feast of Pentecost took place at the 
close of wheat harvest. This stream was always 
inconsiderahle^ except after heavy rains: and these 
made the stream muddy and unfit for bathing. Mr. 
B. says that the filth from the city did not run up 
stream^ and therefore they might have gone above 
the city for the purpose of immersion. But the 
reader will recollect that this o-entleman has said 
"Jerusalem contained a million of inhabitants;" and 
according to Strabo, was about 60 furlongs, or about 
eight miles in length. Then supposing the preach- 
ing to have taken place in the temple, as is most 
likely; and admitting, that temple to have stood in 
the midst of the city; it would have been a journey 
of at least four miles, to have gotten to Kidron above 
the city. Some of our Baptist friends, feeling the 
difficulty connected with the supposition that they 
were baptized in Kidron, (especially as the passage 
says not one word about their leaving the place of 
preaching,in order to receive the ordinance,) and their 
theory requiring them to find some means whereby 
to immerse the 3000, have supposed, that they were 
baptized in the ^'brazen laver,^^ — or in the vessels 
used by the Jews for purification, <&c. The reader 
will recollect that these public, and private, bathing 



158 

places, were in the keeping of the enemies of Christ 
""—those who had been his betrayers and murderers. 
It is not Ukeiy that they would allow Peter, and the 
other apostles, to use them for the baptizing of their 
converts. If there had been a probability that Pe- 
ter wished to drown those who had received the 
doctrine of Christ's Messiahship, then, indeed, he 
might possibly have been permitted to use their 
baths. Moreover, the manner of purifying among 
the Jews must have been, generally^ at least, by 
sprinkling or pouring, as we may learn from John 
ii, 6 — "And there were set six loater pots of stone, 
after the manner of the purifying of the Jews." We 
have no doubt, there was water enough in Jerusa- 
lem, to immerse ten thousand people, and we should 
believe they were baptized by that mode, if we had 
any evidence of it But, in the total absence o( b\\ 
evidence, we cannot take the svppositions of our 
Baptist friends jTorproo/*. 

Again, the cases of Cornelius and his family; 
Saulof Tarsus, and those that Paul met at Ephesus, 
Acts xix, and the jailor and his family at Philippi, 
were all cases where the ordinance was administered 
without so much as a 'bath,"^ or 'cistern,'^ being men- 
tioned. But the immersionists are always ready 



159 

with the means to immerse; they find a^bathing tuV 
in the house of Cornelius, and a tarik^ or cistern^ in 
the jail at Philippij and a hath in the private housej 
where Ananias found penitent Saul of Tarsus. 1 
would just suggest, that if they were to apply the 
reasoning which they use with regard to 'infant bap- 
tism' to these cases, it would ruin their own cause. 
The baptism of Lydia and her family, and of the 
eunuch, are all the Christian baptisms that were 
performed out of doors, so far as we have any infor- 
mation. On the case of Lydia, Mr. B., Ser. p. 37, 
makes a remark calculated to mislead the reader. — 
*'It is worthy of remark," says he, "that the sermon 
which produced her conversion, was preached by the 
river side^ and that she and her family were bap- 
tized before they went into her house. As they 
were at the river side they could readily be immers- 
ec?.'' And 1 say, as they were near the water, they 
could be readily sprinkled. If the reader will be at 
the pains to look at Acts xvi, 13, 14, 15, he will see 
plainly, that Mr. B's remark is unfair, and makes 
an erroneous impression. The state of the case was 
simply this: — Paul, Silas, Timothy and Luke, in 
their travel, came to Philippi; they remained there 

^certain days;' and when the Sabbath came, they 
15 



160 

walked ^outofthe^ idolatrous city, and found a few 
women by the river side holding a prayer meeting. 
What, it may be asked, induced these women to go 
out there to worship? Not to receive baptism, can- 
did reader; that, in all probability, was not in all their 
thoughts, when they went to the river side. They 
were either Jews or proselytes, who were not suf- 
fered to worship the true God within the limits of 
the heathen city. And when the apostles went out, 
and, as by accident, fell in with these devout women, 
they 'sat down and spake to them.' And while 
Paul was speaking, "the Lord opened Lydia's heart." 
And he, pursuing the "apostolic pattern," gave the 
ordinance of baptism just where the word took ef- 
fect. When the word took effect on the people out 
o[ doors, they did not go into the house to adminis- 
ter the ordinance; and when it took effect in the 
house, they did not go out of doors to give the ordi- 
nance! If Paul had been a preacher of the modern 
Baptist stamp, and had worked by their "pattern," 
he would not have given Lydia baptism until she 
had related a 'Christian experience,' such as should 
be considered "evangelical;" and perhaps, not until 
she had waited for weeks or months, to be certain 
that she was not deceived. Paul's practice in this 



161 

case was just such as a Pedobaptist's would have 
been. They never go from water in order to baptize. 
And he baptized Lydia and her family at the ^river 
side,^ not in the river; before they went into the 
house, or even into the city. 

Reader, this presents a striking contrast with a 
case, which occurred under the administration of a 
Baptist preacher, not fifty miles from where Mr. B. 
now lives. A candidate presented himself in the 
^church meeting,' related his 'experience;' from 
which it appeared he had been convicted several 
years before, and converted some twelve months, or 
more, prior to his offering himself for baptism. The 
preacher was highly delighted with the delay; pro- 
nounced it an ^apostolical experience' — Hhe work not 
of a few days but of years;^ and was admitted to the 
ordinance. So he understood the -apostolic pattern.' 
I leave it to the candor and common sense of the 
reader, whether the New Testament furnishes any 
such case as the above! Saul, of Tarsus, was bap- 
tized on the third day after his conviction, and that 
is the longest delay we read of. Injustice to Mr. B., 
I must say, he is not the preacher referred to. 

On the case of the jailor, Acts xvi, 23 to 40, Mr. 
Bej Ser. p. 37, has attempted the most shameful im^ 



162 

position upon the reader, that I ever recollect to 
have seen in print. He does indeed 'correct the 
diction of the spirit by that of the party,' in the lan- 
guage of Mr. G. Campbell, as quoted by Mr. B. 
Putting certain words in capital letters, he makes an 
attempt to prove that the jailor and his family v^ent 
out to a place where there was water sufficient to 
immerse them. 1 was more convinced from this 
part of Mr. B's sermon, than from any other, that 
he considered his cause in danger. I request the 
reader to take up his bible, the plain man's lexicon, 
and just look at the passage in the spirit of candor, 
He will see, without the wisdom of Solomon, that 
this gentleman has attempted to make the passage 
speak a language, which Luke, the writer, never in- 
tended. He has put the words 'brought^ and 'owf,' 
and 'brought them into his house^ in capitals, and 
says, "As to the facilities for obtaining water, the 
river Strymon, as geographers tell us, ran through 
the city, where water could be had, even if the jailor 
had no bathing cistern on his premises;'' and then 
says, "I have shown that the jailor, and Paul, and Si- 
las, went out of the house to administer baptism, and 
though they should have to go five miles to a river 
or bath, I will put them to that trouble^ before I will 



163 

consent tliat baptizo shall be deprived of the mean- 
ing which Professor Stuart says "all lexicographers 
and critics of any note, have assigned to it.' " Pro- 
fessor Stuart says just the contrary, as I have shown 
in another place. Mr. B. proceeds — "But the truth 
fs, to a mind disposed to be governed by the plain, 
common sense meaning of the language of scripture, 
there will be no difficulty in finding water for im- 
mersion, within reach of the jailor's house, or 
indeed in his house, prepared for the purpose in a 
HOGSHEAD, if it were not so fully stated that they 
were baptized w^hile out of the house.^^ Baptist 
preachers heretofore (so far as I am informed) have 
never dreamed that they were baptized out of the 
house, but have invented a 'cistern'^ or Hank,'' in the 
jail. This gentleman has struck out a new course; 
invented a new salvo for the case. He had just as 
well have put the words Hhrust them into,"^ in verse 
24, in capitals, to prove that Paul dipped them into 
the'Strymon,^ as to have put 'brought them out,' and 
^brought them into his house,^ in capitals, to prove 
that they went out to a baptizing place. One would 
have been as near the truth as the other. And 
these are the men who stand up and tell the people 
they only need to look into the New Testament, 
15* 



164 

without note or comment, to see Hhe law of baptism^' 
and the practice of the apostles under that law. 
^The Bible,' say they, ^is the best book on baptism.' 

Most commentators give the text first, and then 
the explanation, but these reverse this order. They 
give the Baptist comment first, and then the sacred 
text. The comment is 'the word baptize means to 
dip or immerse only,'' and then if you meet with a 
text like the one under consideration, where it is 
difficult to find water for immersion, then you must 
apply your comment on the word 'baptize;^ and 
have them plunged, any hoio, even if you immerse 
them in a figure, 'or immerse them in a wind or 
sound,'' for the Spirit, or have them go to the river 
'Strymon,' or even five miles at midnight; and if 
jT^ou cannot see that they were really out of doors, 
you can immerse them 'in a hogshead* of water, 
prepared for the purpose. 

I will now give the reader a view of this case as 
it stands in the passage referred to above. In v. 
23 we find that 'the magistrates laid many stripes 
on Paul and Silas, and cast them into prison, charg- 
ing the jailor to keep them safely.' In v. 24, we 
find, 'he having received such a charge, thrust them 
into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the 



/ 165 

stocks.' I ask, where are they now? you say they 
are in the inner prison, or dungeon. Very good. 
When God had shaken the jail with an earthquake, 
V. 26, and the doors flew open, "and every one's 
bands were loosed," the jailor awakening up, 'call- 
ed for a light, sprang in, and fell down before Paul 
and Silas,' and brought them out, and said, sirs, 
what must I do to be saved? v. 29, 30. I ask, where 
are they now? you say just where they were before 
they were put in the inner prison; that is true. 
Reader you will take notice that the words 'brought 
them out,'^ occur before any thing is said either about 
believing or baptisrn, and before there was any 
preaching. And they said, v. 31, 'Believe on the 
Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy 
house.' 'And he took them the same hour of the 
night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, 
he and all his, straightway J v. 33. 'And when he 
had brought them into his house, he set meat before 
them,' &:c. v. 34. And the reader will find in v. 
40, 'That they went out of the prison, and entered 
into the house of Lydia.' 

Mr. B's version of the matter makes them come 
out of the house at midnight to preach the gospel, as 
well as to baptize; for the words brought them out. 



166 

are before his ^speaking to them the word of the 
Lord,' for they are not said to have been brought 
into Ms house, until after the baptizing; he brought 
them in to give them something to eat. As Mr. B 
will have them brought out of the jail before the ser- 
vice took place, and as we have seen they were not in 
the jailor's apartment until after the baptism; then 
they must have exhibited the odd spectacle, of per- 
sons going out of a huilding to preach at midnight: 
— unfortunately for Mr. B's theory, w^here the bring' 
ing out is spoken of, no body is mentioned but Paul, 
Silas, and the jailor. Yet when the baptizing is 
mentioned, ^he and all his' are 'baptized straight- 
way,^ The true state of the case W3.s evidently this, 
—he brought them out of the dungeon^ into the outer 
prison, and asked, 'What must I do to be saved?' 
The family, children and domestics are assembled 
to hear the sermon, 'and they spake unto him the 
word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house,^ 
Here the Greek word ^'oikia^^ is used, which signi- 
fies the household, the whole domestic establishment, 
according to Schrevelius's Lexicon. He interprets it 
by the Latin word domus, which Cole's Latin Dic- 
tionary interprets, a house, family, household, &;c. 
When the sermon was over, and the jailor had 



167 

received baptism, with all his family, and had wash- 
ed the stripes of the preachers, 'he took them into 
his house, 2Lnd set mesit before them,' &;c. Now, I 
suppose, in this, as in all large cities, the jailor oc- 
cupied a part of the same building with the prison- 
ers. At least, he was so near, that in the midnight 
hour, when he awaked up, he saw ''the prison doors 
open," and when he drew out his sword to commit 
suicide, Paul cried to him, "do thyself no harm." 
— And he 'called for a light, and sprang in.' I ask 
again, where? into the inner prison. The phraseol- 
ogy of the passage would leave the impression on 
the mind of an unbiassed reader, that the jailor's 
family resided in a part of the same building with 
the prisoners. The Roman law made prison-keep- 
ers answerable for the safe keeping of those commit- 
ted to them: — hence, the precaution this man took, 
to put the prisoners in the dungeon, and make 'their 
feet fast in the stocks.' And hence he was about to 
take his own life, 'when he supposed the prisoners 
had fled.' We find, from Acts xii, 18, 19, that the 
keepers of the prison, who let Peter escape, paid for 
it with their lives. And they were under the same 
civil jurisdiction, or laws, with the Philippian jailor. 
I am quite willing to leave it to the decision of 



168 

the intelligent reader; in view of the law, — in view 
of the fact of Peter's escape, and the death of those 
who suffered him to escape, — in view of its being 
midnight, and in view of the passage saying not one 
word about their going away from the prison; — 
whether they went to the ''river Strymon," or to 
any other place, for the 'purpose q/* immersion? So 
much for Mr. B's '^brought them out." As it 
regards a halh or cistern in the prison^ for the com- 
fort and cleanliness of the prisoners, we would re- 
mark that such things are not very common^ even 
now, after all the untiring efforts of such men as John 
Howard, the philanthropist, in behalf of prisoners; 
and they made no part of the appendages of an an- 
cient heathen prison. I think it will appear, that 
the circumstances of this case of baptism, are quite 
as inflexible against immersion, as Mr. B. is dis- 
posed to think the Greek word baptizo, is for it. 
And if he had possessed candor enough to have 
quoted his Schrevelius on this word, as he did on the 
word '^paidia'^^ when arguir*j against the Hiifants,'^ 
Ser. p. 13, we should have had a different account of 
it. It suited his purpose better, to quote Dr. Carson, 
as he makes the word mean immersion only. And if 
in the case above referred to^ viz^ ^'paidia,^^ he ha^ 



169 

possessed the candor to have quoted the parallel 
passage in Luke xviii, 15, he would have found the 
word "5rep/ia" the plural of brephos, used, which 
Schrevelius would have informed him signifies "z/j- 
fansy'^ an '''infant'''^ a ''bahe^ He would have thus 
been saved from the ridiculous attitude of a Christian 
teacher attempting to explain away the words of the 
Holy Ghost, as used by St. Mark. 

The case of the eunuch, found in Acts viii, 26 to 
39, is considered by our opponents as conclusive evi- 
dence in favor of immersion. But when this matter 
is sifted a little, the evidence will not appear quite as 
conclusive as those have thought, who have been 
taught all their life to consider nothing to be baptism 
that falls short of dipping or immersion. With re- 
gard to the prepositions used here, we have shown 
in another place, that nothing can be gathered from 
their use in this controversy. Mr. B. seems to 
concede, that the eunuch's immersion cannot be 
proved 'Agoing into^^ and ^'coming ouV of the wa- 
ter. He says. Strict, page 17, and Ser. page 36, 
"you must not suppose that my argument is founded 
on going into^ and coming out of^ the water: for all 
this, I know, might be done without any immersion; 
here is the argument — why should they go into the 



no 

water, merely to sprinkle?'^^ and asks, "Who ever 
said that going into the water, means immersion? Did 
any intelligent man ever say so'?" I reply that many 
men have said so; but as it regards their intelligence^ 
we say nothing. In this case, as in most others, Mr. 
B. has to resort to his version of baptizo. 

When we refer to the passage, we find that the 
eunuch was travelling through a country which was 
'a desert,^ and, consequently, the water they came 
to, was not a considerable stream; as is probable, 
we think, from the fact that in that country even 
small streams made the places where they were 
found, populous, as any person can see by a refer^ 
ence to the map. And, moreover, as the streams 
where John is said to have administered the ordi- 
nance, are mentioned by name, it is probable that if 
this had been a water course, or stream, worthy a 
name, its name also would have been given. The 
language of the eunuch is, 'see here is water!' An 
exclamation, as though he had unexpectedly discov- 
ered it. The reader may find, by a reference to 
the passage which he was reading at the time Philip 
fell in with him, that it stands in intimate connexion 
with, and is a part of the same prophecy, where 
Isaiah lii, 15, speaks of Christ ^sprinkling many 



171 

nations.^ And indeed there are but six verses be- 
tween that passage and the text, from which "Philip 
preached unto him Jesus." He no doubt gave him 
to understand, that, himself and others were acting 
under a commission to 'disciple all nations, baptiz- 
ing them,' (fee. and, of consequence, when he be- 
came willing to receive Christ, he offered himself 
for baptism. I can see, therefore, how he could 
readily understand the rite of initiation to be admin- 
istered by sprinkling. For, whether the passage 
above quoted was explained by Philip as alluding to 
baptism literally, or to the thing signified by it, in 
either case the mode is by " 'sprinkling'^ many na- 
tions.'' So I conclude that he did not give him 
baptism by immersion, as a symbol of that spiritual 
washing, that was to be eflfected by sprinkling. But, 
perhaps, an immersionist would like to suggest, that 
the prophet refers to what Christ would do himself; 
and that, therefore, the prophecy cannot refer to the 
apostle's making "disciples of the nations by sprink- 
ling." I reply, that it is very common in Scripture 
language for God to be represented as doing, what 
he causes to be done. The reader can find a strik- 
ing case in point, John iii, 22. "After these things 

came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; 
16 



172 

and there he tarried ivith them and baptizedJ'^ Com- 
pare this with the 1st and 2d v. of the next chapter: 
^'When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees 
had 'heard that Jesus made and baptized more dis- 
ciples than John.' Though Jesus himself baptized 
not, but his disciples,^^ Here is^ evidently as plain a 
declaration that ^Christ baptized,^ as the prophet 
has, 'he shall sprinkle many nations,' and yet we 
are informed subsequently that 'Jesus baptized not, 
but his disciples.' 

How natural then was it, for the eunuch to ask 
for baptism, if Philip gave him an explanation of the 
prophecy; as referring to the ordinance of Christian 
baptism, given by "sprinkling the nations.'' What- 
ever others may think, 1 am decidedly of the opin- 
ion that this is the genuine interpretation of the pas- 
sage. And that the whole of the 51st, and 52d, chap- 
ters of Isaiah, refer to what should take place under 
the gospel; "the sufferings of Christ, and the glory 
that should follow," in the setting up, and establish- 
ment of the gospel kingdom; when the Messiah 
should "see his seed," 'and the pleasure of the Lord 
should prosper in his hands,' when 'his doctrine' shall 
'come down^ on the nations 'as rain,' under the 
preaching of his apostles, and their successors, 



I 



173 

and when by their hands^ he should ^sprinkle many 
nations.'* 

I conclude from the above, that Philip and the 
eunuch, came to a spring or run of water; that they 
both alighted, and going to the water, he received 
the ordinance, and afterwards went on his way re- 
joicing. But Mr. B. asks, 'Why should they go 
into the water in order to sprinkle?^ I reply, for 
aught that appears to the contrary, they were no 
more in the water, than the sons of the prophets 
were, "when they came 'eis' to Jordan to cut down 
wood," 2 Kings vi, 4; the same proposition is used 
in the case under consideration. 1 presume the 
sons of the prophets hardly stood in the river to fell 
trees. 

The missionary, Mr. Wolfj found a sect of Chris- 
tians in Mesopotamia, who called themselves *the 
foilow^ers of John the Baptist, who baptized children 
at thirty days old, and who performed the rite by 
sprinkling water upon the child at the edge of a 
river. See his Journal, vol. 2, p. 311, as quoted 
by Watson. Mr. Wolf asks, "Why do they bap- 
tize in rivers?" Answer: 'Because St. John the 
Baptist baptized in the river Jordan.' "Thus we 
have in modern times, river baptism without immer^ 
sion,'^^ 



174 

We next notice, a favorite argument of our Bap- 
tist friends, drawn from the supposed immersion of 
Christ. 'If no body else ever was baptized by im- 
mersion,' say they, 'surely the Master was; and we 
are commanded to take up our cross 3.nd follow him? 
We are by no means convinced that Christ was im- 
mersed. And if it could be shown that he was, I 
have not been able to find in the New Testament 
the command, to receive the same baptism that he 
received. I hold, that the baptism of Jesus Christ 
was very peculiar; such as no other person ever re- 
ceived. 1st. He being without sin, could neither re- 
pent, nor promise amendment of life. 2d. Being 
the wisdom of God, he could be taught nothing. 3d. 
Being the Christ, he could not profess that he would 
believe in him, that should come after him, that is 
in himself. He therefore was baptized: 1st. To 
honor the office of his herald; 2d. That he might 
fulfil the righteousness of John's dispensation: and 
3d. That by this rite he might be inducted into,— 
installed in his public office, as the 'prophet like to 
Moses;' as the High Priest over the house of God. 
The language of Robert Hall is, 'He was inaugu- 
rated into his office at his baptism, till which period 
he remained in the obscurity of private life, &c.' 
See Works, vol. 1, p. 372. 



176 

At thirt)' years of age the priests were Hvashed 
with water;' and 'anointed with oil;' Exodus xxix, 4, 
7, and Leviticus viii, 6, 10, 11, 12. So we find 
that Christ, at the age of thirty, was washed of John 
at Jordan; and 'anointed with the Holy Ghost,' and 
John said, 'I knew him not, but he that sent me to 
baptize, said, upon whomsoever thou shalt see the 
spirit descend and light upon him; he it is that bap- 
tizeth with the Holy Ghost,' 

I suppose Mr. B. will hardly say that while Jesus 
stood upon the bank of Jordan, the Spirit immersed 
him; (when the text says, "it descended upon kirn 
like a dove.'' John i, 32, 38;) as there is nothmg 
said here about a wind^ or sounds J^^^^^g (^^^ out of 
doors. Those who talk so much of 'following Christ 
down to Jordan,' and are perpetually teazing the 
weak, but sincere believer in Jesus, about being im- 
mersed in imitation of Christ's example, ought to 
recollect that he was circumcised, as well as bap- 
tized, and that after his baptism, he fasted forty 
days and nights^ and had a severe rencontre with 
the great adversary of God and man, before he en- 
tered upon the discharge of the functions of his high 
office. They should recollect also, that, he regular- 
ly kept the Jewish Passover, and his disciples also 
16* 



176 

kept it with him; he also washed their feet, and said 
to them, "Do to one another, as I have done to you." 
Those who would receive the baptism which Christ 
received from John, (even if this were possible,) 
would need re-baptizing, in order to be initiated into 
the Christian church; for we have the authority 
of St. Paul, Acts xix, and of that distinguished Bap- 
tist preacher J Robert Hall, of England, for saying, 
that John's was not the Christian baptism. His 
words are, as quoted in the first part of this discus- 
sion, "wo rite celebrated at that time, (i. e. during 
John's ministry,) is entitled to a place among Chris- 
tian SACRAMENTS, siucc they did not commence 
with the Christian dispensation." Hall's Works, 
vol. 1, p. 372. Now if our Baptist friends will in- 
sist that they must go to the water, and do as Jesus 
did, (i. e. receive John's baptism,) we cannot go with 
them, for we cannot consent to throw up our right 
to an interest in the Christian dispensation. Hear 
the words of our Master, Luke vii, 28, — "Among 
those that are born of women, there is not a greater 
prophet than John the Baptist; but he that is least 
in the kingdom of God is greater than /le." And 
Mr. Hall says, that "the phrase kingdom of God is 
constantly used to denote that state of things under 



177 

the administration of the Messiah." See as 
above. 

He therefore who would forsake the kingdom of 
God, or Christian church, and go back to John 
at Jordan, under the fanciful idea of following Christ, 
might, with equal propriety^ have his male children 
circumcised, at eight days old, and constantly keep 
the Jewish Passover; for he could plead the example 
of Christ in honoring these institutions also. "I 
speak as unto wise men." 

But I shall be told that the scriptures say, — "And 
straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the 
heavens opened." Mark i, 10. It is said in Matt, 
iii, 16 — "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up 
straightway out of the water." In both these places 
the Greek word 'apo' is used, the first sense of 
which (according to Parkhurst's Lexicon) is *from;' 
so we see that nothing can be fairly made out from 
his case, to show that even the manner in which he 
received the ordinance was by plunging. His coming 
up, and going up, show nothing for immersion; be- 
cause they imply action, whereas in immersion the 
subject is always passive- 

We must now call the attention of the candid 
reader to the favorite argument of our differing breth- 
ren, drawn from a fanriful interpretation of Rom. vi, 



178 

4, — ^**Therefore we are buried with him by bap- 
tism into death,'' &;c., andColoss. ii, 12. Mr. B., 
(Ser. p. 10,) seems to consider this allusion of the 
apostle, as a most conclusive argument for the mode 
of baptism by immersion. He says, "I pause to ad- 
mire the wisdom of the Most High, in putting it into 
the mind of his inspired servant, to describe the or- 
dinance of baptism, by so familiar an illusion. Let 
the learned, my brethren dispute about the meaning 
of Greek verbs and prepositions, you all understand 
what a burial is, and if Paul called baptism a burial, 
you will easily decide whether he meant sprinklingy 
pouring, or immersion.^^ Query — Did any of Mr. 
B's hearers or readers, ever witness a burial, where 
the body was dipped or plunged in the earth? I 
dare say they have witnessed many, where the body 

had THE EARTH SPRINKLED OR POURED UPON IT. It 

is easy for those who do not think much, to be led 
away with the sound of a word; but 1 hope better 
things of you, intelligent reader. 

There are several serious difficulties which lie 
against this fanciful argument for immersion; 1st, 
Although Mr. B, says St. Paul 'describes it by an 
allusion,^ (rather a strange method of description, 
by the way, and that too, in a matter where he says, 



179 

**we may expect to find the word of God })ery ex- 
plicit upon the subject." Ser. p. 6,) yet in all the 
four gospels, in all that John the Baptist, and Jesus 
Christ ever said with regard to baptism, there is not 
one solitary intimation that the ordinance had any 
reference to a burial; either to the burial and resur- 
rection of Christ, or any other. Again, in all the 
Acts of the Apostles, in all that they said, from time 
to time, on the subject of baptism, there is no such 
allusion; nor is there in the Epistles, except in the 
two passages above referred to. 2nd, That St. Paul 
has reference to the mode of literal baptism in these 
passages, is exceedingly doubtful; because no such idea 
was given him at his own baptism, by Ananias, as 
that he was to 'ainse and be baptized, to represent 
the burial and resurrection of Christ,'^ On the con- 
trary, he said, "x\rise and be baptized, and wash 
AWAY THY SINS, Calling ou the name of the Lord." 
He was taught then to consider baptism as repre- 
senting the WASHING away of sins, and not to con- 
sider it as representing a grave, the place of loath- 
someness and corruption. 

The fine idea that we hear so often advanced about 
the 'liquid grave,'' the ^expressive rite,'' 'the watery 
tomb^^ &;c. is a modern invention, and has no author- 



180 

ity from tlie word of God. Who can see any resemb- 
lance between a man wading into a creek or river up 
to his waist or arm-pits, and another dipping the rest 
of his body under water, and the laying away of the 
body of Jesus in a sepulchre, above ground, hewn 
out of a solid rock, there to remain three days? 
Jonah's being three days and nights in the belly of 
thefish^ was the sign of the burial and resurrection 
of Christ; hence Jesus told the Jews, "there shall ?io 
other sign be given you, but the sign of the prophet 
Jonah;" and yet our Baptist friends will have it, that 
baptism was, and is, the sign or representation of 
Chrisf s burial diXid resurrection* 

But reader, their practice is at war with their theo* 
ry; for if, as they say, baptism does really represent 
the burial and resurrection of Christ, then they should 
not require persons to be baptized before they admit 
them to the Lord's supper; because in this they require 
them to shorn forth the burial and resurrection of 
Christ before they allow them to obey the command 
of Jesus, in showing forth his passion and death, in 
the sacred supper. They thus reverse the order of 
those important facts, and show the Lord'^s resurrec- 
tion before his death. I have to urge against this 
interpretation; 3d, That it proves too much; for if, 



181 

'being buried,' in the passage, alludes to the mode of 
baptism, then so does 'being planted, or grafted, in 
the likeness of his death,' allude to the mode of 
baptism; for the subject is the same in verses five 
and six as in verse four. And 'being crucified' also 
must refer to the mode. In the passage in Colos- 
sians, the 'rising with him' spoken of, is said to be 
'through the faith of the operation of God.' We can 
see no good sense in which it can be said; a man 
rises in baptism Hhrough faith,^ 

If any thing in these passages can be shown to al- 
lude to the mode of baptism, then partial immersion^ 
as 'planting,' or using the sign of the cross, has as 
much evidence in their favor as immersion. In con- 
clusion, we are of opinion that these passages refer 
to the spiritual baptism spoken of in the word of 
God, 1 Cor. xii, 13, — 'For by one Spirit are we 
all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or 
Gentiles;" and we have seen, that the 'one Spirit' is 
administered, by pourings falling upon^ ^c. The 
passage may be considered, as referring to the 
mighty energies of the Spirit of God, whereby the 
believer is regenerated, "crucified with Christ,'' 
"planted in the likeness of his death;'' and if baptism 
literally is referred to at all, it is only as the instru- 



182 

mental cause, the initiating rite, by which we enter 
the church, where^hy profession we are, and in fact 
ought to be, 'Mead indeed unto sin, but alive unto 
God through Jesus Christ " If our Baptist friends 
will insist still, that, the mode of baptism by immer- 
sion is referred to, and that the ordinance is intend- 
ed to represent the burial and resurrection of Christ, 
I have two questions to ask: 1st, If the rite was in- 
tended to represent these two things, how did it 
come to pass, that the disciples were so ignorant of 
the doctrine of Christ's resurrection up to the eve of 
his crucifixion, that ^^They wondered what the ris- 
ing from the dead should mean?'''* 2d. If this ordi- 
nance has been instituted to represent the burial and 
resurrection of Christ, then we ask, where is the 
Christian rite, that is the emblem of moral purity? 
Christianity has but two sacraments — baptism and 
the Lord's supper; the first, emblematical of the 
'Spirit's' influences, and the second commemo- 
rative of the breaking of the body, and the shed- 
ding of the blood, of the Son of God. Blood and 
WATER came forth from the pierced side of Jesus, 
emblematical of atonement and of purity. ^^By 
ivater we Sire purified, and pardoned by his bloody 
"There are three that bear witness in earth; 



183 

earth; the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these 
three agree in owe/" 1st John v, 8. I consider this 
text as referring to the Spirit of God. The loater 
of baptism, and the blood of Jesus all agreeing in 
one mode of administration; and that is sprinkling 
or pouring. 

Mr. B. says, Serm. page 27, ''Baptism does not 
necessarily include the idea of water, at all. We 
might baptize with meal, with oil, with honey, with 
Sand; the question is, what action constitutes bap- 
tism?'' Query — could a man be immersed in sand? 
sand or meal might be poured or sprinkled on the 
subject, but the 'action,^ as he calls it could never 
be dipping or plunging. The word 'baptizo,' as it 
occurs in Mark vii, 4, 5, with regard to the wash- 
ing of hands, cups, tables, &;c. cannot be interpreted 
as signifying the action of dipping, only: for though 
their hands and cups might have been dipped, yet 
surely they did not wash or baptize their 'brazen 
vessels,'^ and 'tables,^ or 'couches,' by immersion. 

We now notice the argument from antiquity. Mr. 

B. thinks that the practice of the 'ancient church^ 

shows the 'pattern' of baptism, and he quotes 

Mosheim and Robinson, Ser. p. 41, to prove that 

the pattern was l)y immersion. That immersion was 
17 



184 

practised in the second century, and for some time 
subsequent, we firmly believe. The Baptist argu- 
ment on this point runs thus: "The Baptists practice 
immersion, and so did the ancient church; and, there= 
fore, so did John the Baptist and the apostles.'' This 
to them is demonstration. But stop, reader, we 
must look a little at this argument. The primitive 
church, in this mode of arguing, is made the con- 
necting link between the New Testament times, and 
our own. Let us now try another argument. In 
the primitive church, the people were immersed 
naked, both men and women; therefore John, and 
the apostles, immersed people naked; therefore the 
Baptists ought to immerse people naked. Again: 
The primitive church gave milk and honey to the 
baptized, and used unction, so did John the Baptist 
and the apostles, so ought the Baptists. Again; The 
primitive church baptized infants, so did John, and 
the apostles, so ought the Baptists. If our friends 
should object to my insisting on the argument being 
thus pushed to its consequences, I must contend if 
the pattern is to be found in the second century, 
they must not alter that pattern: for Mr. B. says, 
Serm. page 6, ^'Unless the plan laid down in the 
PATTERN is implicitly pursued^ the thing required 



185 

t* not perfonned at a//." I will prove by Mr. B's 
witness, (and he will tell the truth in this matter no 
doubt, as he is a Baptist,) that the ancients gave the 
ordinance, the subjects being in a state of nudity. 
"The primitive Christians baptized naked. There 
is no ancient historical fact better authenticated 
than this.'' Robinson's History of Baptism, page 
85, Wall says, "The ancient Christians, when they 
were baptized by immersion, w^ere all baptized 
naked; whether they were men, women, or children. 
They thought it better represented the putting off 
the old man, and also the nakedness of Christ on the 
cross. Moreover, as baptism is a washing, they 
judged that it should be the washing of the body, 
not of the clothes,^'' Wall, chap, xv, part 2. So 
they understood the pattern. If it were necessary, 
we could produce an abundance of testimony to con- 
firm this point. And I leave it to the intelligent 
reader to judge, whether they received this pattern 
"iTi the mount^^'^ — or whether it was the offspring of 
superstition. "Religion, like the Saviour, is often 
placed between two thieves; Superstition on the 
right hand, and Atheism on the left, the one makes 
a puppet of her, sets her out in gaudy accoutre-^ 
ments, and bedaubs her native beauty with paint, 



186 

and presents her not in her matron-like dress; the 
Atheist strips her naked of her vestments, and ex- 
poses her to the scorn and contempt of the world. 
But let these men esteem her as they list, she is 
nevertheless the fair daugliter of the Almighty, the 
Queen of Heaven, and beauty of the whole earth." 
And it is known to all that read, and think, that 
human nature has alxcays been prone to add to the 
soiPLE CEREMONIES of Christianity. Imposing or- 
dinances are no proof of the genuineness of a relig- 
ion, under the gospel, where "the true worship- 
pers worship the Father in spirit and in truth." 

The Baptists very often are found vaunting about 
the uniformity of their views and practice; they will 
tell you that they have always rejected "infant bap- 
tism" — and always practiced immersion. If the 
reader will attend, I will give him a fact or two from 
a Baptist writer that will prove a small drawback 
upon these high pretensions. In Benedict's History 
of the Baptists, vol. i. pages 150, 151, 152, it is said, 
*'The American Mennonites, have adopted pourings 
instead of immersion^ and it is probable that many^ 
and I know not but most of the European Mennon- 
ites have done the same." The reader will bear in 
mind that these Baptists have been a numerous sect, 



Ib7 

in the Netherlands, Upper Saxony, Prussia, Russia, 
Poland, France, &;c. &c. and their le^er, or founder, 
Menno, who died in 1561, — asserted that dipping 
was the only baptism, acceptable to God." "The 
Dutch Baptists (says Benedict) held to dipping be- 
lievers at first; they still retain the subjects of the 
ordinance, but by a surprising change, soma, I know 
not how many, have departed from the apostolic 
mode." It is surely very surprising that so many 
Baptists should depart from the apostolic pattern, if 
cold bathing is as convenient, pleasant, and healthy 
as Mr. B-roaddus seems to think it, Serm. p. 40, and 
Strict, p. 22, he says, "It often proves beneficial to 
health,'' (kc. If it could be shown that God has 
said, all men, who are to be baptized, must be im- 
mersed — then there should be no demurring-, and 
although Mr. B. has again and again begged the 
question, without proving the position, we are still of 
the opinion that those Baptists who have given up 
immersion; and adopted pouring, have acted wisely. 
We must now say a word on the question of the 
validity of the ordinance, as administered by those 
who have never been immersed. Nothing is more 
common, than for our differing brethren to object, 

when ive administer the rite by immersion. We do 

17* 



188 

not consider it 'the most excellent way,^ but if any 
prefer that mode, and we cannot convince them that 
pouring is the better mode, we immerse them; and 
consider that we have given as valid baptism^ as 
Eider B. could give. 1 have sometimes asked our 
Baptist friends, if the validity of the ordinance rests 
upon the qualifications of the administrator, or 
otherwise; but I have not found them at all agreed 
in opinion on that point. If the reader will consult 
Benedict's History of the Baptists, vol. i, page 475, 
he will discover, that, the first Baptist church in 
this country was founded or planted by Roger Wil- 
liams, in the year 1639, in Providence, Rhode 
Island. Mr. Benedict gives the following account 
of this matter: "Being settled in this place, which 
from the kindness of God to them, they called Prov- 
idence, Mr. Williams and those with him, consid- 
ered the importance of gospel union, and were de- 
sirous of forming themselves into a church, but met 
with a considerable obstruction; they were con- 
vinced of the nature and design of believers' baptism, 
by immersion; but, from a variety of circumstances, 
had hitherto been prevented from submission. To 
obtain a suitable administrator, was a matter of con- 
sequence; at length, the candidates for communion 
nominated and appointed Mr Ezekiel Holliman, q, 



189 

mail of gifts and piety, to baptize Mr. Williams; and 
who, in return, baptized Mr. HoUiman, and the other 
ten." Here is the origin of the Baptists in these 
United States; and here was a church, that was no 
church at all, according to the opinion of many of 
the Baptists. Mr. HoUiman did not pretend to be 
either a minister or a baptized believer, but he was 
appointed to give believers'^ baptism to Mr. Williams, 
and then Mr. W. gave believers' baptism to him, 
and the other ten. 

The intelligent reader may see with what con- 
sistency, the Baptists attempt to invalidate the ordi- 
nance as administered by us, even when immersion 
is the mode, although they may attempt to disguise 
it, yet there are several circumstances, which go to 
show that they consider the ordinance given by 
any but a Baptist preacher as being no baptism at 
all, 

1st. They will not admit any such to the Lord's 
table among them. 

2d. If any such offer to join their church; they 
do not receive them unless they re-baptize them; 
and 

3d. If a Methodist minister, gives the ordinance 
by immersion, they generally hear of the murmur- 



190 

ings of the Baptists, 'You have no right to give it,' 
say they, ^you donH believe in it,"* &c. But here we 
have a Baptist church, without believers' baptism; 
and who knows how many of the present race of 
Baptist preachers descended from that ^rsf church. 

Query, are their ministrations more valid than 
Mr. Hollimans, if they happen to be in this branch 
of the succession, as he could give Mr. Williams 
nothing that he did not himself possess, and as he 
(Mr. W.) had received no valid baptism, he could 
give none to the rest. 

This they supposed was the pattern, and they 
practiced the 'laying on of hands'^ in that church 
after baptism, as did many others in the early part of 
their history in this country. Now it was hardly 
very modest in Mr. Benedict, in view of this case, 
in his own church to attempt to ridicule the prac- 
tice of the Catholics in appointing laymen to admin- 
ister baptism to children, or sick people in cases of 
emergency. 

I have not given this case with any design to in- 
validate the ordinance as practised by the Baptists. 
But to let them and the public know^ that their boast- 
ing about the superiority of the ordinance as admin- 
istered by them; and the idea they put forth about 



191 

the identity of their doings, in a literal conformity 
to all /Ae CIRCUMSTANCES of a 'positive institute,' 
are frivolous and vain. 

While they attempt to unchurch their neighbors, 
whose claim to piety is as good as their own; by 
representing them as the 'disobedient children' of 
God, and saying in their confession of faith, chap. 
xxvii, p. 29, Alexandria edition, 1833; "A visible, 
or gospel church, consists of those who have believ- 
ed, been baptized by i3I3iersion, given themselves 
to the Lord, and to each other, as required in the 
divine word." They ought not to complain if their 
errors and bigotry, at least, are 'handled without 
gloves.' 

We have shown, we think, in the course of this 
argument, on the MODE of baptism: "1st. That 'no 
law of baptism^ can be found in the Greek word 
"baptizo," and that the opinion of Mr. B. and Dr. 
Carson about its meaning immersion only, is contra- 
dicted by critics and lexicographers; by Professor 
Stuart, Mr. Wesley, and Dr. Clarke; and what is of 
more weight still, by John the Baptist, by Jesus 
Christ, by St. Peter, and by St. Paul, one of the best 
scholars of his time. Does not the candid reader 



192 

think tbat St. Paul understood Greek as well as the 
corrupt Greek church? We have shown, 

2d. That Mr. B. has miserably abused his Fe- 
BOBAPTisf witnesses; and that he has more than in- 
sinuated that king James, the bishops and translat- 
ors formed a conspiracy against the truth, in giving 
the world the common version of the scriptures, 
without translating the Greek word, so as to mean 
immersion only. We have vindicated the translat- 
ors, and shown that they followed the common cus- 
tom, pursued by Luther, the Latin and French 
translators, and also by Mr. George Campbell. 
And in this they followed the Spirit of God, shown 
in the case of the Lord's supper, where the Hebrew 
word ^'pascha^^ is retained by the inspired wTiters 
of the New Testament, in the Greek word "pascha.^^ 
We have shown, 

3d. That if the meaning of the word used in dipos- 
itive institute, is to furnish the law and fix all the 
circumstances, of its observances, then, in the ob- 
servance of the sacrament of the Lord's supper, we 
ought to eat a full meal, for the word used in 1 Cor. 
xi, 20, to designate that ordinance, is ^'deipnon''' sup- 
per, which, among the Greeks, the learned tell us, 
was the word used, not only for a/wZZ meal, but for 



193 

the principal meal. Yet our Baptist brethren think 
they have taken the sacrament of the supper, 
really and fully, when they have taken a little piece 
of bread, and have sipped of wine. Why cannot 

baptism be PEBF0R3IED WITH A LITTLE WATER?!! 

** Judge ye what I say." In this part of the argu^ 
ment I have shown also, the futility of Mr. B's fan-^ 
ciful notion about positive institutes. 

4th. That the divers baptisms among the Jews, 
appointed of God, were performed by ^sprinkling the 
unclean,^ and that applying water for purification 
where an administrator and a subject were found., 
was never by immersion^, 

5th. That it is highly improbable that John could 
have baptized by immersion, the hundreds of thous^ 
ands, that came to his baptism, and that the Jordan 
and the 'much tcater^ were wanted for purposes other 
than dippinor. 

6th. That the baptism which took place in pri- 
vate houses^ and in the prison, and in the temple, can- 
not be made by any /air dealing, to favor immers- 
ion, but to the contrary. And I am strengthened in 
this view by what Mr. Benedict says about the Men- 
nonites, learning to baptize by pouring, *Hvhere they 
made proselytes in prison»'\ Query— Where were 



194 

the Hanks,^ 'batJis^ and 'hogsheads,' for immersion, 
which abounded so much in the days of the apostles; 
had modern prisons none of them] 

7th. We have shown that baptism of the spirit 
WAS BY "pouring," "FALLING UPON," (fec, and that 
Mr. B. in order to evade this argument, has run into 
the egregious mistake of making "the rushing wind" 
and "sound" or echo, that filled the house, to be the 
Spirit of God, "overwhelming the disciples." And 
we have shown also, that when it came down upon 
Cornelius and his company, it was shed forth, with- 
out an accompanying wind or sound. And that on 
Christ it came descending Hike a dove.^ 

8th. We have shown also, that in every case of 
baptism recorded in the New Testament, the ordin- 
ance was given ivithovt delay, whether it were night 
or day; and that there is a total absence of evidence 
that any person ever moved or walked so much as 

ONE HUNDRED YARDS FROM THE PLACE OF PREACH- 
ING, IN ORDER TO RECEIVE THE ORDINANCE OF BAP- 
TISM. Let the reader compare this with what takes 
place in modern times. Who ever in our day, hears 
of a baptism by immersion, without hearing also, 
that Elder A. B. or G. went from such a meeting- 
house to such a creek, run or river, to administer 



195 

baptism to C. D. or F. There is no such thing in 
the New Testament, John was at Jordan^ and 
EnoT), and "in the wILDER^'Ess," but these were 
his places for preaching. And in the same chapel 
where he preached, there he gave the ordinance. 

9th. We have shown that nothing can be deter- 
mined with certainty, from Romans and Colossians, 
with regard to the mode of baptism, from the allus- 
ion of the apostle to burying. As the text equally 
refers to 'planting^ and 'crucifixion,^ as to 'burying,'^ 
and the text has a higher, and more important al- 
lusion. And that a burial is never performed by 
dipping or plunging, but by pouring or sprinkling 
the dust upon the coffin. And that the Baptists 
blunder most wretchedly when they make baptism 
represent the burial and resurrectiox of Christ, 
instead of the washing away of moral impurity, by 
the baptism of the Holy Ghost and fire. Thus in 
order to support a theory they wrest one of the 
Christian sacraments from its proper place, and 
inake it the representative of that, to which the 
great law giver never appointed it. With all their 
clamor about Hhe liquid grave,' and Hhe significant 
rite,' many of them have yet to learn, the nature 

and MEANING OF Christian baptism, 

18 



196 

10th. We have shown that the idea of following 
Christ in John's baptism is more specious than scrip- 
tural^ as Christ's baptism was peculiar and as John 
did not give Christian baptism to his followers; 
being the minister of an inferior dispensation, 

11th. We have shown, that if the Baptists will 
insist on derivinsj the evidence of immersion from 
the ancient church in the second, third, and fourth 
centuries, and will attempt to prove thereby that 
immersion was the 'apostolic pattern;' then they 
must take the consequences, and believe that the 
apostles, the ministers of a religion scrupulously 
modesty baptized men and women *naked as Adam 
and Eve,' before they fell, and that they used salt^ 
milk and honey, oil, immersion three times, white 
garments for the baptized, &c. &c. As this was the 
pattern of the ancient church, according to Wall, 
Robinson, and others. The practice of immersing 
people with their clothes on is a modern invention, 
about as far from the 'pattern of the ancient church* 
as is our mode by pouring. For if baptism is a 
washing, as the ancients considered it, then we 
should consider it rather a novel, senseless thing to 
see a man attempting to wash his feet with his shoes 
and stockings on, or his hands with his gloves on. 



197 

They built baptistries to be sure, and endeavored to 
work by this pattern; but when they found that this 
child of swperstition could not be maintained with- 
out scandalous occurrences taking place in them, 
(see Miller on Baptism, p. 105,) the true friends of 
religion laid aside the practice of baptism by im- 
mersion upon naked subjects; as the Mennonites 
have the practice of dipping altogether. And that 
the administration of the ordinance among our Bap- 
tist friends now is attended with serious difficulties, 
is evident from the fact that we hear more said 
about ^'taking up the cross'^^ in baptism, than in 
taking up all other crosses; and we know that great 
alar7n^ and perturbation of spirit^ often accompanies 
the administration in the case of females especially; 
which renders devotional feelings out of the ques- 
tion, at least for the moment. We speak not from 
theory^ but from the undoubted testimony of the 
parties concerned. 

In conclusion, we remark, that as Christ in apply- 
ing water to the feet of his disciples, gave Peter to 
understand that this partial application of the water 
INDICATED an INTEREST iu the Saviour, so we con- 
clude, that the application of water by pouring or 
SPRINKLING it on the head, (a much more mtal, and 



198 

noble pari than the feet,) in the name of the 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, answers all the 
purposes of the ordinance, and IS VALID CHRIS- 
TIAN BAPTISM. "I speak as onto wise men, 
judge ye wl^at I say." 



A FURTHER APPEAL, 

BY H. SLICER, 

IN KEPLY TO THE TWENTY-ONE LETTERS 

ADDRESSED TO HIM BY 

MR. BROADDUS. 



"Speaking the truth in love." — St. Paul. 

"Truth, like light, always travels in straight lines." — Lacon. 

Candid reader! to you and not to Mr. B., shall I 
address myself in the review of these letters. I 
have the consolation to know, that, although the 
advocate of Pedohaptist views may be weak^ the cavse 
is strong, and rests not upon the talents, or inge- 
nuity of any man, however skilled in argument. 

It would be as fair to infer the incorrectness of 
the views of Baptists from the evil practices, and 
visionary theories of Muntzer and the German Ana- 
baptists, as for Mr. B. to attempt so far, to connect 

me with the Pedobaptist views, as to infer their 
18* 



200 

weakness, and unsoundness^ from what he is pleased 
to consider my misrepresentations of his arguments* 
For the intelligent reader will perceive, that the gen- 
tleman arrogates to himself and his mews^ not only 
all the argument^ but all the scripture authorities 
also; hear him, page 13 — "i do not blame you, sir^ 
for not producing any argument in fovor of your theory '^ 
for arguments there are none, in the wide compass of 
creation, to prove that infants are proper subjects of gos-^ 
pel baptism.^^ This is only one of many broad 
declarations, unsupported by proof, contained in his 
letters. The reader will perceive, from the above 
quotation, how little hope is to be entertained of 
making any impression upon men, who claim to 
have in possession all the argument in 'Hhe wide 
compass of creation'''^ on the subject of Christian 
baptism. 

What I have written in the following pages, is 
designed for those who have intelligence, and can- 
dor, sufficient at least to admit, that they are not too 
wise to learn, or too knowing to be taught some- 
thing more, on the subject of this solemn and im- 
portant ordinance, — and who will weigh in the bal- 
ances of impartial judgment, what may be advanced, 
convinced that the cause of truth can never suffer 
by investigation. 



201 

Some of these letters I shall notice; others I shall 
barely allude to, as I have answered the points con- 
tained in them at length, in the first 'Appeal' — and 
I cannot consent to waste either my own time, or 
Ihe reader's, in repeating over those parts of my ar- 
gument which Mr. B. has not seen fit to attempt to 
answer. It was my aim, in the first reply to him, 
to condense the matter as much as possible; this I 
shall still keep in view, convinced that the strength 
•^ an argument does not consist in the use of many 
words, but in 'words fitly spoken.' 

Mr. Broaddus sets out by professing to have no 
other object in view, "than to maintain the purity 
of our Lord's institutions," and yet it is manifest 
in his 'note to the reader,' and throughout his 
twenty-one letters, that the vindication of his own 
reputation, which he considered implicated, gave 
him more concern than any thing else involved in 
the controversy; and he has fallen upon the strange 
expedient of proving himself innocent of mutilat- 
ing, by an attempt to prove me guilty; with how 
much success, the candid reader will be able to 
discern. 

In his first letter, page 5, he acknowledges that I 
had oflered "to meet any minister, or layman, in 



202 

the bounds of my district," and yet, although he 
was fairly included in the offer, he says "he had re- 
ceived no offer from me." 

Then, fearing, I suppose, that his language was 
somewhat contradictory, he adds — ^'But I will be 
candid enough to acknowledge, that if you had formally 
challenged me to an oral discussion, I shoxdd have de* 
dined it for several reasonsP He then gives three 
reasons, which may have satisfied that gentleman's 
understanding and conscience, but the flimsy charac- 
ter of which, I doubt not, the discerning public will 
discover. 1 will here set down his reasons. He says: 
"/« the first place, common fame had informed me, that, 
you were naturally of a temperament, which must render 
a debate with you, very disagreeable to a man of ordinary 
sensibility J^"^ I had previously learned, indeed, that 
the gentleman had given the above reason, to some 
person or persons privately, but I could not fully 
credit it, at the time. I thought, however, if that 
ibcts his private reason, he would hardly so far for- 
get himself, as to put it in print; thus publicly sin- 
ning against the law of "that charity which cover- 
eth a multitude of sins;'^ ^Haliing up a reproach 
against his neighbor,'' even though ^'common fame''^ 
might have laid it down at his feet. ^^ Common 



203 

fame*'* once said of Him that was pure and spot- 
less — "JTe hath a devil, and is mad, why hear ye 
him''' — "Ae stlrreth up the people'''^ — "he speaketh 
blasphemies,^^ &:c. It is enough for the servant, 
that he fare as his Lord. As Mr. B. would have it 
understood, that, he is conversant with that book, 
that gives ''correction in righteousness,'*^ he will, 
perhaps, upon reflection, see his error — and may, 
perchance, perceive that it is hardly modest to talk 
of the temperament of others, ^vhile his letters give 
such fearful evidence, of a mixture of sanguine and 
choleric in his own. If he will look at the 'Course 
of Time, b. viii,' he may possibly learn a lesson 
from the Christian poet, that will be of service to 
him in future. Of "common fame,'' Pollok says: 
*'She was so infamous for lies. 



That he, who of her sayings, on his creed, 
The fewest entered, was deemed wisest man." 

Secondly; (Mr. B. says,) "/ doubted whether I 
should he able, amidst the exciting circumstances of a 
public debate, to present my own views of the subject in a 
proper spirit, "^"^ So it seems he was afraid of him' 
self, as well as of me. As he has thus referred to 
himself, I may be permitted to close this point, by 
saying, he thought, no doubt, a spark of my fire 
might possibly fall into his tinder-box, and that the 



204 

effect might be disastrous to his own cause. *Pru- 
dence is the better part of valor;' and he that knows 
he carries a powder magazine about him, does well 
to keep at a respectful distance from sparks. So 
much for his second reason. 

Thirdly — he was afraid to trust the people with 
an oral argument, thinking they would not be able 
to judge of its strength. In this, at least, we should 
have been equal, as they could have judged of the 
argument, from Ais lips, as well as from mine. 

I regret the necessity of noticing these things, 
rather foreign from the merits of the controversy; 
as they may be deemed somewhat personal in their 
nature. 

The attempt Mr. B. makes, in his first letter, to 
show that the passage in the 19th ch. of Acts, does 
not furnish evidence that Johi's baptism differed 
from Christian baptism^ is truly a lame attempt. 
How changeable are the views of those who con- 
tend for immersion as the exclusive mode. The old 
Anabaptists used to quote this passage to sustain 
them in re-baptizing. But now Mr. B. seems ta 
suspect that possibly they were not re-baptized at 
all. He says — ''Many eminent men have very 



205 

plausibly contended, that, Paul did not re-baptize 
them." 

"Plausible," as their views are in his judgment, 
he is not able to make up his mind yet, to contra- 
dict the plain narrative of St. Luke, but supposes, 
without any shadow of evidence to support him, 
that there was some defect in the baptism which the 
twelve disciples at Ephesus had received, although 
John's baptism itself was not defective. He says 
that ^^various reasons might he assigned for their being 
rt-bapiized, withGut, in the smallest degree, discrediting 
John^s as Christian baptism^ But the H'arious reasons'* 
turn out to be one only, and that so meagre, as to 
be unsupported by any evidence — merely a creation 
of Mr. B's own imagination! First, he has to sup- 
pose, that tliose persons were baptized by some of 
John^s disr.iples; secondly, that those disciples of 
John, had not heard of the recent commission given 
to the disciples of Christ; and thirdly, that the 
twelve, at Ephesus, were baptized with a defective 
baptism, being taught to believe on a Saviour yet to 
come. 

Now, candid reader, all this in Mr. B. is perfectly 
gratuitous, for there is not a word of it in the chap- 
ter. He might become a believer in infant baptism 



206 

if it would suit him, by a much smaller exercise of 
his guessing capacity. For instance, in the case of 
the children mentioned by Matthew, Mark, and 
Luke, who were taken in the Saviour's arms, if he 
would only be willing to svppose one thing, instead 
of three, and say ^possibly' they were baptized, as 
well as blessed, then we should have him an advo- 
cate for infant baptism. The intelligent reader will 
perceive how convenient a thing, our opponents 
sometimes find an inference to be, in helping them 
out of a difficulty. 

On page 8, Mr. B. makes another effort to prove 
that ^' there never was a visible church of Christ in exist- 
ence, until he came and made arrangements himself, for 
discerning, by meano of ordinances, between the righteous 
and the wicked^ Here, gentle reader, is a new way 
of discerning "between the precious and the vile." 
'^Ordinances!"^ — I suppose ho means baptism and 
the Lord's supper!! Was there ever a case known 
since the opening of the gospel dispensation, in 
which, by means of these ordinances, it was discern- 
ed that an individual was an unworthy member of 
the church of Christ? Did ever the ordinances 
distinguish, in the Baptist church, between the 
righteous and the wicked? Mr. B. says in his Dia- 



20t 

logue, page 117, that *'Elder G. and all his churches 
have been excluded from the Baptist denomination, 
in coRsequence ofhis immorality J^ Was this immorality 
discerned hy means of ordinances'? On the same page 
he gives us the true mode of discerning, where he 
speaks of an influential "individual, ivhose conduct has 
proved him to be an unworthy member of the church^ 
So, after all, it seems that the Baptists judge of people, 
not by the ^ordinances,^ hut by Hheir conductf just as 
the apostles judged of Judas, Demas, Simon the sor- 
cerer, and the incestuous Corinthian; and just as the 
priests and ministers did under the Jewish dispen- 
sation. Mr. B. says, page 8, "No rules were pre- 
scribed, under the former dispensation, by w^hich to 
separate the (wicked) from the privileges of those 
that were worthy." We will appeal from this state- 
ment "to the law, and the testimony," Ex. xii, 
15 — "i^or whosoever eateth leavened bread, from the first 
day, until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from 
IsraeV^ Num. ix, 13 — "But the man that is clean, 
&c. and forbeareth to keep the passover, even the same 
soul shall be cut off from his people — that man shall bear 
his sin.''^ 

See Lev. xxiv, 10 to 23, and Deut. xxix, 21. — 
These are a few of the many passages, which go 

to show that the church, under the former dis- 
19 



20S 

pensation, was not that promiscuous assembly of 
wicked and righteous persons, in the enjoyment of 
equal privileges^ that Mr. B. seems to think it was; 
but that It was under a rigid discipUne, ''separating 
the precious from the ri/e." 

The Baptists suppose, because tliey hav*e been 
baptized by immersion, that therefore they have a 
mark upon them, by which they are distinguished 
from others; whereas, no one could discern from 
the fiict of their having been baptized once, or twenty 
times, that they were worthy members of the visi- 
ble church of Christ. They might be 'washed only 
to fouler stains/ so that after all, Mr. B. says about 
''discerning by ordinances^'' is a mere fanci/ of his 
own. 'Juilge ye what I say.' 

My argument for the uniii/ ^J ^^'^ chvrch of the 
true God, stands unshaken by any thing T have yet 
seen from Mr. B. God never had but one church, 
and will never have less or more. 

The illustration from Rom. \i, which I used to 
show the unity of the church, seems rather to have 
thrown Mr. B. into a dithculty. "By the root, sap, 
and fatness of the olive tree, (he says,) no doubt the 
apostle intends the means of grace, w^ith which 
they, (the Jewish nation,) had so long been blessed. 



209 

Such only as believed, retained these blessings, and 
by the new order of things which Christ had insti- 
tuted, were united with Gentile believers in partak- 
ing^ of them. Here was a visible church of Christ,''^ 
p. 9. Now, observe, according to this representa- 
tion, the visible church of Christ enjoys the 'means 
of grace,^ which the Jewish nation formerly pos- 
sessed. And the apostle, also, says that when the 
Jews return from their unbelief, "they shall be graft- 
ed into their own olive tree.''^ In this passage, Mr. 
B. fairly admits that the believing Jews remained 
in the possession of their privileges, and that the 
Gentiles were incorporated with them. And he 
says, 1 may call the Jewish establishment 'a typical 
church, or a national church — but not a visible 
church of Jesus Christ.'' Reader, was not one of 
the privileges, which they enjoyed, (which he calls 
*means of grace,') the right of dedicating their infant 
offspring to the true God, in an initiatory rite? Now, 
although Mr. B. acknowledges that the root, and 
fatness, still remain the same to those that believed, 
he will have it, that the believing parent, and the 
child, are deprived of a privilege, which had been 
long enjoyed. And the anomaly is presented of a 
mother, a part of whose sons have been recognised 



210 

as church members by circumcision, while those 
born to her, after her reception of the Messiah, 
are left, so far as any outward sign or rite is con- 
cerned, in as outcast a condition as the chil- 
dren of her heathen neighbors. And this, too, un- 
der a dispensation of increased light, and enlarged 
privileges/ f / 

On page 13, Mr. B. attempts to render my argu- 
ment ridiculous: After cutting the sentence in two, 
(the old trade,) putting a period where I had put a 
comma, so as to make it appear that the quotation 
was a whole sentence, and also leaving out a note of 
interrogation in the beginning of the paragraph, he 
says, 'Singular reasoning, truly P — did any man 
ever hear before of such an argument? Mr. B. had 
said — "/Fe know that Esau and Ishmael, and others, de- 
scendants of Abraham, were rejected from the covenant of 
salvation by Jesus Christ,'^'' — and I asked — How 
can he know this? when, according to his own show- 
ing, the covenant of salvation was not offered to 
them, and the only covenant of which they knew 
any thing, was purely of a temporal nature. I still 
ask: Where is it written that they were excluded 
from the covenant of salvation? 

The gentleman, after taking the liberties stated 



211 

above, with what I had said, complains exceedingly^ 
on the same page, that I had attempted, in quoting 
him, to make him appear ridiculous in the eyes of 
my readers; and says, "this seems to be a favorite 
method with him," (me.) And, after preparing the 
reader for a display of the very unfair manner in 
which I had treated him, he sets down two passages 
in parallel columns, and invites the reader to com- 
pare them. I have compared them again and again, 
without seeing that they differ at all in the sense. 
Thinking, perhaps, I might not be able myself, 
to see so clearly in the matter, as would a disinter- 
ested person,! requested ten or twelve intelligent gen- 
tlemen successively to compare them, to see if they 
could discover any sense in Mr. B's quotation that 
is not in mine. So far I have found no one who was 
sufficiently sharp sighted to see the difference that 
Mr. B. complains of. As for his complaint, that 
the word rights, in the last sentence, is put instead 
of the word rites, as in his quotation, we have only 
to say, the accidental substitution of that word for 
the other, did not affect the controversy at all. It 
was evidently an error of the compositor, I gained 
nothing by it, and all the harm done was to make 

tautology in the sentence, and give Mr. B. an oppor- 
19* 



212 

tunity to groan, without cause. Although I am 
satisfied that I have done the gentleman no wrong, 
in quoting him, yet to gratify him, in the revised 
edition, I have placed his own quotation at length, 
and I hope the compositor will, in. the last sentence 
of the quotation, get the 7*ight word 'ri/e.' So that 
the gentleman, if he should honor me with any fur- 
ther notice, will not have this 'straw to catch at^^ in 
supporting his sinking cause, and vindicating his in- 
jured reputation. 

In his remarks on my 'string of questions,' as he 
calls them, page 15, he seems quite to have lost his 
amiability I suppose those interrogatories awoke 
his ^'ordinary^'^ or eor^raordinary ^'sensibility*'^'' He 
is at a loss, he says, what to attribute those ques- 
tions to; — whether to 'a v/ant of common sense,' or 
to wickedness, in 'intentional misrepresentation.' 
He will have it, that either my understanding or 
my heart is defective. He hopes, however, I will 
'find some explanation that will relieve him.' Now, 
candid reader, I have no means by which to learn 
what Mr. B's meaning was, except from the words 
which he used. If he cannot find means to make 
himself understood, that is not my fault, and I have 
no fears that the intelligent reader will understand 



213 

his words ia any other sense, than the obvious one, 
which I gave them. He has acknowledged that the 
statements made in my quotation 'are contradicted 
by the fac'.s in the case.' Then if the reader shall 
find that I have quoted him fairly, it will appear that 
he himself has contradicted the facts ^ relative to the 
institution of circumcision in the family of Abraham. 
My appeal is to you. 

I will here present the reader with a quotation 
from Mr. B's Strictures, page 4, which may throw 
some light on the views expressed by him in his Ser- 
mon, page 17 — "TAe Abrahamic dispensation se- 
cured TO ALL who icere circumcised, a portion in 
THE EARTHLY Canaan." Now, wiU that gentle- 
man say that this statement is not contradicted by 
the facts? Ishmael, and Esau, and their seed, were 
circumcised, and the men of Abraham's house, three 
hundred and eighteen in number; — and did all^ or 
any of them^ have any portion in the earthly 
CzVNaan'? I answer no — and every man who is ac- 
quainted with his bible, and has not 'a theory to sup- 
port'' by contradicting factSj will answer no. 'I 
speak as unto wise men, judge ye what I say.' 

On page 15, in noticing my remarks relative to 
the New Constitution of Virginia, which I had used 



214 

by way of illustration, Mr. B., instead of giving the 
illastration as I had stated it,* gives just enough of 
it to make a wrong impression, and answer his own 
purposes. If he had given all my words in the case, 
the reader would have seen that I was perfectly 
correct. I refer the reader to the *AppeaP for the 
illustration as I used it. Why did not the gentle- 
man see fit to give the illustration which I took from 
the common law? I suppose he thought it best to 
to keep that out of the view of his readers, as he has 
most of my arguments. 

Page 18, Mr. B. says, "It is exceedingly unfair 
to bring the charge of 'close communion' against 
us, when you ought to have known our sentiments 
upon this subject." Does he mean to deny, that the 
Baptists hold close communion? His quotation from 
our Discipline proves just nothing for his cause, be- 
cause it says not a word about the communicant 
having been baptized, nor does it say any thing 
about persons of another denomination. His state- 
ment about my being as close as he is, if I follow out 
our constitution, is altogether gratuitous. The dif« 
ference is only this — / admit all the Christian m 
world to the Lord's table, who are not immoral in 1 
their lives, and who acknowledge our Lord Jesus 



215 

Christ as their Saviour; — Mr. 13. excludes all the 
Chnstian worlds however pious, however 7nuch the friends 
of Jesus, except those who have been clipped in bap- 
tism in adult age. Does the reader think / am as 
close as Mr, B? 

But he asks, ^suppose the applicant for commu- 
nion should tell you that he rejects water baptism 
altogether, would you receive him to the commu- 
nion?' I should endeavor to convince him of the 
propriety and obligation of baptism. But if I could 
not succeed in this, I would not 'smite my fellow 
servant,' as Robert Hall says the Close Communion 
Baptists have done; and make for him that a term 
of C0M3IUNI0N which is not a term. I would ex- 
tend to him the lenity which Hezekiah extended to 
the people in his day. See 2 Chron. xxx, 17, 18, 
19, 20 — '^For a multitude of the people had not cleans- 
ed themselves, yet did they eat the Passover otherwise than 
it ivas written; but Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, the 
good Lord pardon every one that prep areth his heart to 
seek God — though he be not cleansed according to 
the purification of the sanctuary. And the Lord hearkened 
to Hezekiah,^'' Sfc, This king did not feel himself 
authorized to drive the people of the Lord from the 
Passover feast; because they had omitted the pre- 



216 

> 

paratory purification. And^I can see no good rea- 
son why we should debar a smcere believer in the 
sacrificial death of Christ, from commemorating that 
solemn event in the sacrament of the supper, be- 
cause he cannot see it to be his duty to be bap- 
tized. 

As Mr. B. has quoted our discipline on this sub- 
ject, and says members of other churches have to 
undergo an examination, and takes upon himself to 
suppose, that we would make the matter of baptism 
a point in the examination of the applicant, I will 
only say, if he had found it convenient to quote the 
next sentence, the reader would have seen the ex- 
planation of the one he did quote. Here it is — *'No 
person shall be admitted to the Lord's supper among 
us, who is guilty of any practice^ for which we 
would exclude a member of our church.'' 

As Mr. B., page 19, has dragged in the subject 
of female communion, and has declared that 'Hhere 
is a Thus saith the Lord for it in every passage of 
scripture that speaks of the Lord's supper at all,^^ it may 
not be amiss to examine this matter a little. In the 
first mention of the supper, Luke, xxii, 14 to 20, 
it is said that Jesus '*sat down, and the twelve apos- 
tles with him.'' Now, will the gentleman say, that 



217 

part of the apostles were females? He says in 
every passage^ where the supper is mentioned, there 
is a "Thus saith the Lord," for female communion. 
It happens that we have the names of the twelve 
who were at the institution of the Lord's supper, 
and there is no female name among them. But he 
says ^'disciples met, and we know, without any ia- 
ference about it, that the females met with them; 
because we learn that both men and women were 
made disciples by baptism.'' "You might as well 
contend that it is an 'inference' to say that the 
males met to break bread ;ybr they are no more spe- 
cifed than the females,^^ Mr. B. surely pre- 
sumes very much upon the ignorance, or credulity 
of his readers, when he makes such sweeping decla- 
rations as the above. Does he suppose that they 
are so little acquainted with their bibles — the book 
he so often calls the ^poor man's lexicon' — that he 
expects to pass off on them such unsupported decla- 
rations? 1 refer the reader to 1 Cor. xi, 28, 29, 
33 — "But let a 3Iaw examine himself, and so 
let HIM eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For 
HE that eateth and drinketh unworthily — to him- 
self, dec. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye 
come together to eat, <fec — and yet, Mr. B. says, 



218 

males are no more specified than females. Our 
Baptist writers aware that the course of reasoning 
they pursue with regard to infantSj denying them the 
rite of baptism, because they say there is no precept 
or precedent for baptizing children, would, if adopted, 
in the case of females^ exclude them from the Lord'^s 
tablcy have attempted to furnish a Thus saith the 
Lord. And they will not allow that there is any 
inference in the matter. They argue thus; Women 
were baptized as well as men — women and men 
constituted the churches — the churches partook of 
the Lord's supper — therefore women have a right 
to the Lord's table. But is not this an inference? 
This is no express warrant. It is strange that 
those who reason thus for women^ should yet refuse 
all inference for the infant children of women. 

As Mr. B., page 20, has concluded, without rea- 
son, that I had either given vp the argument from 
proselyte baptism, or had not made up an opinion on 
that point, and expresses a hope that he will hear no 
more on the subject, I have introduced a short arti- 
cle in the enlarged Appeal on proselyte baptism, to 
which I beg leave to refer the reader. To what 1 
have there said on the subject, [ here add a remark, 
and several authorities. The baptism of proselytes 



219 

is generally supposed to have taken its rise from the 
baptism of the Jews, when passing through the Red 
sea, to which the apostle refers, 1 Cor. x, 1,2. As 
they, coming out from idolatrous Egypt, were *all 
baptized to Moses,' the Jews considered, in all after 
ages, that, those who renounced idolatry, and join- 
ed the church of the true God, should be baptized 
as well as circumcised. In proof of which, 1 refer 
to the quotations given below. Calmet's Dictionary, 
article Proselyte — ''The Jews require three things 
in a complete proselyte; baptism, circumcision, and 
sacrifice; but for women, only baptism and sacri- 
fice." 

Witsius, one of Mr. B's witnesses, says — "When 
a Gentile became a proselyte of righteousness, three 
ceremonies were used, viz: circumcision, baptism, 
and sacrifice." 

Stackhouse, another of Mr. B's witnesses, says — 
"The custom of the Jews, in all ages, has been to 
receive their heathen proselytes by baptism, as well 
as by sacrifice and circumcision." 

Dr. Wall, another of Mr. B's witnesses, says — 

"Whenever Gentiles were proselyted to the Jewish 

religion, they were initiated by circumcision, the 

offering of a sacrifice, and baptism. They were all 
20 



220 

baptized^ males and females, adults and infants. 
This was their constant practice, from the time of 
Moses to that of our Saviour, and from that period 
to the present day." 

Finally, I quote Dr. Adam Clarke, another of Mr. 
B's "witnesses — "The apostles knew well, that the 
Jews not only circumcised the children of proselytes, 
but also baptized them. The children, and eveni/i- 
faiits of proselytes were baptized among the Jews. 
They were, in consequence, reputed clean, and par- 
takers of the blessings of the covenant.'' 

The apostles, being by birth and education Jews, 
would, therefore, in 'discipling all nations,' admit 
the children with the parents, unless forbidden so to 
do. 

The astonishment expressed at John's baptizing, 
did not arise from the fact that he practised baptism, 
but because he declared he was neither the Christ, 
nor EUas, nor that prophet, at the same time admin- 
istering the rite of baptism; — that he should, while 
disclaiming the character of a minister, exercise the 
functions of one. See John i, 19 to 26. 

The quibble of Mr. B., on page 20, about infants 
not being saved 'by any thing pertaining to the gos- 
pel dispensation,' one among many instances 



221 

which prove the non-commital character of his theo- 
logical views. While he calls upon me to state 
frankly and plainly what our views are, he studiously 
avoids giving his own with regard to the condition 
of infants. He says, "we, or at least /, do not place 
their salvation upon any thing pertaining to the Christian 
dispensation^ 

On page 29, he says, with regard to infants, "I 
have not attempted to show, (nor shall I,) how they 
are fitted for heaven; but I am sure it is not through 
sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth." 
Here the reader will perceive, Mr. B. gives no opin- 
ion about the manner in which infants are saved. 
Does he believe at all in the salvation of all who 
die in infancy? 1 do not ask this question because 
he does not baptize infants, but because he was once 
an advocate of a system of partial grace; and al- 
though 'he has changed his manner of preaching,' I 
have not learned that he has avowed the 'change of 
his belief m one single item.' 

Now, candid reader, I shall appeal to the Phila- 
delphia Baptist Confession of Faith, page 45, for 
evidence that the Baptists formerly held the regene- 
ration of some infants at least, by Christ through the Spirit, 
and I suppose the spirit 'pertains to the gospel dis- 



222 

pensation.' The words of the Confession are, "Elect^ 
infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved 
by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, 
and where, and how he pleases: so, also, are all elect 
persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called 
by the ministry of the word.'' The reader will ob- 
serve; that they quote the words of Christ to adult 
Nicodemus, in proof of the position here stated — 
'Except aj man be born again, he cannot see the 
kingdom of God;' — 'The wind bloweth where it 
listeth,' (fee. — 'So is every one that is born of the 
Spirit.' It seems then, that, those plain honest peo- 
ple, who were not afraid that the world should know what 
they held as doctrine, considered that infants were 
fitted for heaven through the operation of the Spirit. 
The Confession I quote from, was put forth by the 
'Elders and brethren, in London and the country,' 
and adopted by the Association which met at Phila- 
delphia, in 1742. 

But perhaps I shall be told these views are not 
entertained now by the Virginia Baptists. And 
as Mr. Broaddus says, ' The Baptists generally ac- 
knowledge no Confession of Faith but the JVew Testa- 
ment,'' page 24, I may be referred to the New Tes- 
tament to learn Baptist views. However, if the Bap- 



223 

lists will publish ^Declarations of Faith,' I must be 
allowed to quote them as authority. In 'a Declara- 
tion of Faith,' published by the United Baptists of 
Virginia, (or several associations of them,) printed 
in Alexandria, 1833, they declare, page 14 — "The 
creature being wholly passive therein, being dead in 
sins and trespasses, until, being quickened and re- 
newed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to 
answer this call, and embrace the grace conveyed 
in it,'' (kc. So it seems, candid reader, that, al- 
though Mr. B, will not state his views, (if he has 
any,) about the manner in which infants are saved, 
or fitted for heaven; that in the view of the Confes- 
sions of Faith quoted above, adults and infants are 
both 'renewed, or regenerated' by the Holy Ghost, 

Mr. B. affects to believe, that he has found out a 
wonderful difference between my views and Mr. 
Wesley's, on the subject of the condition of infants; 
and he seems so pleased with the discovery, that he 
drags it forward, for the entertainment of his read- 
ers, in several different letters. Let us look at it a 
little. On page 32, he says, "Allow me to quote 
what Mr. Wesley says, and also what you yourself 
say. 'Infants need to be washed from original sin.' 

(Wesley's V/orks, vol. 9, p. 159.) 'infants have 
20* 



224 

innocency to recommend them.' (Slicer's Appeal, p, 
20.) Is not this a disagreement." He adds, "But 
you even disagree with yourself on this point; for, 
although you recommend infants by their innocency, 
(page 20,) you say, (page 30,) infants need an 
application of the blood of Christ to purify or 
make them holy.'''' Reader, can you suppose that 
Mr. B. is so destitute of common understandings 
that he does not know the diflerence between inno- 
cence and moral purity or holiness? A teacher in 
the Baptist church, and yet affecting not to know 
that innocency, and the want of purity are compati- 
ble! I did say that infants had innocency to recom- 
mend them to baptism, and I explained it by stating 
they were in a state of justification. In proof of 
which I quoted Rom. v, 18 — "TAe free gift hath 
passed upon all, to justification of life.''^ I did say 
that infants needed the application of the blood of 
Jesus, through the eternal Spirit, to make them 
holy, and fit them for heaven; — and I gave the same 
reason for it that Mr. Wesley did, viz: *Ii^antsneed 
to be washed from original sin,'— My words on page 
30, are, 'I suppose Mr. B. holds the doctrine of orig- 
inal sin, in opposition to Pelagius; if so, infants need 
an application of the blood of Christ to purify or 



225 

make them holy.'' Now you see, intelligent reader, 
that Mr. B. has taken my words out of their proper 
connection, that he has brought a passage from page 
80, and put it opposite a passage on page 20, that re- 
ferred to another matter, in order to impose upon his 
readers an impression that I disagree with myself; 
and, as though he thought he could convince sensible 
people by this kind of management, says, with an 
air of triumph, '*So glaring are the contradictions, 
into which this human device of baptizing infants, 
can lead sensible men." Candid reader, do you see 
any disagreement between Mr. Wesley's views and 
mine? do you see that my own views are unequal? '1 
speak as unto wise men.' 

1 must now ask a question or two further, to show 
the management of this gentleman. Do any of Mr. 
B's members enjoy the blessing of justification? I 
have no doubt many of them do. Being justified, 
are they innocent^ or are they guilty? Innocent, I 
suppose, for I have always been taught to believe that 
justification takes away the guilt of sin. This, 
too, I find to be the doctrine of the Philadelphia 
Confession above quoted, where they distinguish 
justification and sanctification^ and speak of them 
under different heads. Well then, those persons 
among Mr. B's members who are justified, i. e. de- 



226 

livered from guilt, are they holy in heart also? If 
they are not, they need the sanctifying operations of 
the Holy Ghost. Does Mr. B. suppose, that, chil- 
dren are guilty? He seems to be greatly troubled 
that I should contend for their innocency. I sup- 
posed, that the veriest novice in theology would be 
able to distinguish between personal guilt, arising 
from actual sin against God's law, and that corrup- 
tion of nature, which every child brings into the 
world with it, which both Mr. Wesley and myself 
have called 'original sin,'' and which the Baptist 
Confession, page 32, calls 'original corruption, from 
which proceed all actual transgressions.'^ But in 
this, it seems, I am disappointed, Mr. B. cannot un- 
derstaild it. He says, page 30, 'I acknowledge my- 
self utterly unable to comprehend.' 'It will require 
some one better skilled in mystif cation than myself, 
to untangle all this jumble of contradictions.' He 
asks, ^'How those who are not guilty — in a state of 
justification — can need an application of the blood 
of Christ through the eternal Spirit, to purify 
them?" Page 29, he says also, "What do you 
mean Mr. S.? Innocency need purifying? I am 
truly astonished at such views of the subject.'' I 
suppose he thought, that if he cried out from aston- 



227 

ishment, and especially if he could make an impres- 
sion in the Methodist community, that Mr. Wesley's 
views and mine were at variance, he might scare 
some timid soul into the water. Here him, page 21, 
'^Here is the author of the Methodist hook of Discipline, and 
one of its authorized expounders^ as far apart in their views 
of a gospel ordinance, as guilt is from innocencyU! You 
need not wonder, sir, that, under these circumstances, 
those that have not skill sufficient to weld cold iron and 
hot together, should, with the bible, (the ^poor man's Lexi- 
con,^)' to guide them, reject both your theory and Mr, Wes- 
ley^s.^'' It may be that, if Mr. B. had a creed, and 
should make it known to the world, and it should 
not be too 'gloriously uncertain' to be understood, 
that some of his views might at least be as objec- 
tionable even to some of the Baptists, as mine appear 
to be to him, especially as he has heen strongly sus- 
pected of heresy, by many of 'the baptized.^ Query, 
is this the reason why the gentlem.an says, page 23, 

"I HAVE NO CREED NOR CATECHISM FOR THEM TO 

learn!" Mr. Alexander Campbell has no creed^ 
but he has found it convenient to make a translation 
of the New Testament to suit his views. When- 
ever an individual wishes to pull down the fences of 
established doctrine and discipline, he raises a hue 



228 

aad cry about creeds and Confessions of Faith, say- 
ing nhe bible is my creed,' Hhe bible is my disci- 
pline,'— and for what is all this, but to make an im- 
pression upon the credulous that his views are more 
in keeping with the scriptures than those of others, 
in order that he may form a party, and set himself 
up as its oracle? Thus giving an illustration of the 
words of the apostle, — "of your own selves shall 
men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away 
disciples after themj^ Acts xx, 30. 

r here, candid reader, warn you against all lead- 
ers of parties, who emblazon upon their banners, 
^No Creed but the Bihle,'^ They practice a kind of 
'religious piracy ^^ and by 'soft words' and 'fair 
speeches' delude the simple. 

In the early part of my ministry, I was brought 
in contact with some who had, professedly^ no creed, 
and no discipline, but the New Testament. They 
thought this creed taught them to reject infant bap- 
tism; to hold immersion as the exclusive mode; to 
deny the doctrine of original sin, and also the divin- 
ity of the Lord Jesus Christ, How many other er- 
rors they held, it was difficult to tell, for their sys- 
tem, as the systems of all such, possessed a kind of 
CHAMELioN ciiARACTER. I hold the two following 



229 

axioms to be undeniable, 1st, Men tvho are infelli" 
gent will have a well digested system of religious views; 
and 2d, That nrien who have moral honesty will not hesi- 
tate to publish those views to the world, A non-commit- 
tal course on Christian doctrine, is as unworthy a 
high minded honorable man, as it is unbecoming the 
frankness that ought always to mark the course of a 
rehgious teacher. If a man be in the ministry, and 
his mind is unsettled, let him retire until he has 
satisfied himself, what is truth, and what is error. — 
Let him not stand up before intelligent men, and 
reading a few paragraphs from a religious newspaper, 
say, "My friends, these contain my present views of Chris- 
tian doctrine, I say my present views, I do not say that 
they will he my views tivelve months hence, or one month 
from now, hut they contain my present views.''^ The 
nineteenth century is not the time of the world to be 
making, every month, discoveries in Christian doc- 
trine. 'Judge ye what I say.' 

What did Mr. B. expect to gain, by quoting 
against infants, page 30, the words of St. Peter, 
Acts XV, 9? In the first place, he quotes the text 
wrong. His words are, "Peter says, 'God purifies 
the heart by faith;' " Peter's words are, "And put no 
diflerence between us and them, purifying their 



230 

hearts by faith.'' Peter's words refer to particular 
individuals, Hhei?' hearts.^ Tiicy were adult Geatile 
converts, as the reader may see by referring to the 
passage. Peter puts adult converts in the premises, 
and Mr. B. puts children in the conclusion. This 
is a favourite method of some Baptists. Suppose 
Peter does say their hearts were purified by faith, 
does that prove the heart cannot be purified without 
faith? St. Paul says, Ilcb. ix, 14, 'That the con- 
science is purged by the blood of Christ.' And in 
Titus iii, 5, he says. Cod saved us 'by the washing 
of regeneration, and I'cncwing of the Holy GhostJ* 
I wonder, candid reader, if Mr. B. was aware of the 
dilemma, into which quoting Peter's words as being 
against our children, would bring him? Either their 
hearts can be purified toithout faith; — they need no 
purifcatioji; — or they cannot go to heaven. If they 
are born fit for heaven in Mr. B's view, then he is a 
Pelagian, and holds infant purity. But, on the other 
hand, if they are born unclean, unfit for heaven, and 
cannot he imrificd, without faith, and are incapable 
of believing, then, unless in their purity they can go 
to a holy heaven, they must, of necessity, be lost. 
Such are the consequences which follow from this 



231 

gentlemanh method of quoting scripture against in- 
fants. 

The scriptures say expressly that John the Bap- 
tist 'did no miracle,'^ Yet Mr. B., page 29, >vill 
have it, that his being 'filled with the Holy Ghost,' 
was "altogether 'a miraculous infiuence^ and sug- 
gests nothing to us on the subject of the salvation of 
infants,'' John's 'miraculous influence' then, lay 
dormant all his life, for 'he did no miracle,'^ 

On paoe 28, Mr. B. says, with regard to the 
children that were brought to Christ, and taken in 
his arms, "1 did not affirm that there never were 
any unconscious infants brought to Jesus; I only 
expressed a doubt on the subject: and I still have too 
much doubt on the subject, to admit of my regulat- 
ing a gospel ordinance by it." It may be, if this 
gentleman should write once or twice more, that he 
will become a believer at least in the infancy of those 
children, for he seems to be getting rid of his doubts; 
and as doubts leave him, I suppose faith will take 
possession of his mind. In the sermon, page 13, he 
says, 'I am led to doubt exceedingly,'^ I think he 
is a little ashamed of that now, for in quoting him- 
self, he says, '/ expressed a doubt^^ and 'I still have 

too much doubt,^ &c. And he says, 'he hopes I will 
21 



232 

Bee the difference between affirming that 'there never 
were,' and doubting 'whether there ever were.' And 
adds, "if you can see the difference, you may decide 
who ought to 'Mush? in this case." I suppose 
there is about as much difference between the man 
who has 'exceeding doubts' about the truth of God's 
word, and he that 'affirms' that the word is not true, 
as there is between a well grown boy and a man. 
They are both of the same family, only one is a little 
better grown than the other. He that 'exceedingly 
doubts' God's word, and he that denies its truth, are 
both 'of the family of unbelief ."^ Reader, do you see 
the difference? 

Although I had called the attention of the reader 
to the parallel passage in Luke xviii, 15, where it is 
said, 'They brought unto him also infants,' and had 
hinted at the unfairness of Mr. B. in quoting the 
passage from Matthew and Mark, and bringing his 
'lexicon' to explain paidia in those passages, while 
he omitted to quote Luke, where the word brepha 
is used instead of paidia, yet in his 'Letters' he 
plays the same game. Although Luke, the physi- 
cian, wrote after Matthew and Mark, and was, pos- 
sibly, the most learned of the three, and whose men- 
tion of the case may be presumed to give the fair 



233 

explanation of the passage in Matthew and Mark, 
yet Mr. B. does not refer to Luke at all. Because 
he knew that the sense of bkepha could not, by any 
possible construction be explained away. He knew 
that Schrevelius, to whom he referred for the mean- 
ing of the original word in Mark, interprets the word 
in Luke to mean, 'a very little child.' And if 
he had consulted 'Donnegan's Lexicon' on the word, 
he would have found that it signifies 'a new born 
BABE,' and not 'hoy, child, youth, servant,'^ &;c. as 
Mr. B. defines the word in Mark to mean. This 
inflexible word in Luke could not be twisted so as 
to make against infants, therefore he passed it over 
in solemn silence! 

What he says, page 29, about children being the 
'model for adults,' and doves, and sheep, and ser- 
pents being models also, is far-fetched, and perfectly 
ridiculous. When Mr. B. furnishes a passage from 
God's word, where it is said that Christ took sheep, 
or doves, or serpents 'into his arms' 'and blessed 
them,' and said 'of such is the kingdom of God,^ 
and 'suffer them to come to me, and forbid them 
710^,' then, and not till then, will there appear to be 
some sense in what he calls *a syllogism.' I know 
it is often the case that men get into the visible 



234 

church' on earth who have more of the Hhe wisdom 
of the serpent,^ than the ^armlessness of the dove^ hut 
Christ has never said of them 'of such is the kingdom of 
heaven*^ 

After reading elder Dagg's exposition of 1 Cor. 
vii, 14, as given by Mr. B. in his seventh letter, I 
am more fully persuaded of the correctness of the 
view I had given of the passage in my former argu- 
ment, to which I beg leave to refer the reader. It 
would have been better if Mr. B. could have given 
his readers one text of scripture, only, against my 
view of the passage, than to have given all the Greek 
and English of Mr. Dagg's exposition. I quoted 
several, and referred to nine other texts in support 
of my views. 

On page 35, Mr. B. attempts to furnish a salvo 
for the contradiction I had pointed out between his 
Sermon and the Strictures? And he asks, ^Are not 
infants unbelievers?'^ 'Surely you will not deny this; 
and yet they are not guilty of the sin of unbelief , 
for they are not required to believe.' "All I mean 
by denominating them unbelievers, is, that they are 
not believers^ neither is it possible they could be. 
Where now is the discrepancy?" Well, then, it is 
not possible that children should believe. And yet 



235 

he will have it, that they are imbelievers. Mr. B. 
is the first man, whose productions I have ever read, 
who could so far forget or expose himself, as even 
to ask 'Are not infants unbelieversV A new kind 
of unbelievers truly!! Suppose, candid reader, I 
apply a little of Mr. B's logic to this case, in order 
to show more fully its ah surdity. You will observe, 
after all his vaunting about his acquaintance with 
the scriptures, and referring me to them to learn 
Baptist 'customs,' (page 24,) he is exceedingly care- 
ful not to give us much scripture in support of his 
views. I think the reader will find that my ar- 
gument in the 'Appeal' is supported by at least two 
texts of scripture for every one furnished by him, 
either in his 'Sermon' or 'Letters.' This by the 
way, however. — But to the point, 'Are not children 
unbelievers?'' Where is the text? 'Surely you will not 
deny this?'' No I will not, if God's word says so. 1 
will not even 'doubt it'' if the bible declares it. 
Where is the text? It is not to be found. Then I 
shall surely deny it, for I cannot take it upon Mr. 
B's mere assertion, when he is in the habit of mak- 
ing sweeping declarations, and dogmatical asser- 
tions, unsupported by proof. But the gentleman 

means that 'they are unbelievers, because they 
21* 



236 

are not believers.' Woe to the children if his 
assertions are correct j and his logic sound. In John 
iii, 36, it is said, *'He that believeth not the Son, 
shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on 
him.^^ The commission says, "He that believeth 
NOT shall be damned^ And in Rev. xxi, 8, 'The 
unbelieving are classed with murderers and idola- 
ters,^ and ^ shall have their part in the lake burning with fire 
and brimstone.'* Now for Mr. B's logic. "The 
commission excludes all unbelievers^ whether un- 
conscious infants^ or unbelieving adults,^^ Then if 
their not believing constitutes them unbelievers, 
look at the fearful condition in which they are 
placed by the texts above quoted, 'They shall not 
see life,'' and be with the vilest characters 'in the 
lake of fre.^ This is the issue to which Mr. B's 
question, 'Are not infants unbelievers?^ leads to. 
'Judge ye what I say.' The scriptures no where 
attribute faith or unbelief to infants. Because 
they each, and equally require the voluntary exercise 
of the mind and heart with regard to what God has 
spoken; of which infants are incapable. And no 
man who understands the force of language, will ask 
such preposterous and silly questions, unless he is 



237 

closely wedded to a system which he calculates to 
help thereby* 

Mr. B., page 36, attempts to make out that I have 
misconstrued his quotation from Dr. Hill. The 
reader can see, by referring to my argument, that I 
have quoted Mr. B. correctly, (if he has not quoted 
the Doctor correctly that is his look out,) and have 
given the words their obvious meaning. Mr. B. 
represents Dr. Hill as saying, "the writings of the 
fathers have been so long in the keeping of the cor- 
rupt church of Rome, and have been so altered by 
pious frauds, &;c., that our confidence in them must 
be greatly weakened indeed." And I asked if the 
infidel might not urge the same reason against his 
receiving the New Testament scriptures, as they 
too, were long in the keeping of the church of Rome? 
Mr. B. calls this *an attempt to expose him and Dr. 
Hill to the wit of infidels.' If he has exposed him- 
self, that is his misfortune, not my fault. 

His attempt to destroy the credibility of 'Origen' 
as a witness, by recounting some of his errors, is 
truly pitiful. What, I ask, had Origen's 'visionary 
views'^ to do with his testimony concerning a plain 
matter of facti viz: 'Infants hy the usage of the church are 
baptized.''^ His visionary views had just as much 



238 

to do with his testimony in this case, as would the 
^visionary views' of Stork, of the German Anabap- 
tists, if he had given testimony in court, or to the 
world, that John Boccold, the leader of the sect, held 
polygamy, and had, at one time, fourteen wives. 
See Ross's History of all Religions, and Robinson's 
Charles V., vol. 2, p. 301. I suppose in neither 
case ought the testimony to be rendered invalid, by 
the visionary views of the witness in some other 
matters. 

1 am entirely satisfied with the collateral testi- 
mony for infant baptism, given from the writings of 
the 'Fathers,' in the former argument, and shall not 
repeat them here, nor add to the number of the wit- 
nesses, as I conceive for the candid they are qaite suffi- 
cient, and others would not be convinced by a cloud of wit- 
nesses. It was to the interest of Demetrius and his 
silver smiths, when^ Hheir craft was in danger,'' to 
'cry out great is Diana of the Ephesians;' this was 
more easily done than either to prove the claims of 
Diana, or to disprove the preaching of St. Paul. 

I had shown that Mr. B. and Mr. Judson differed 
only about four hundred years, in fixing the origin 
of infant baptism; Mr. B., page 39, complains that 
*I have done him great injustice' in this case. He 



239 

-eems, candid reader, to have been so much hurt, 
that he does Uttle beside complain of injustice done 
him. He not only disagreed with Mr. Judson, but 
now, in the very paragraph in which he complains, 
he contradicts himself^ as I shall here show. He 
says first, ''the practice of baptizing infants greio 
out of an opinion very early entertained by the church of 
Ro7ne, that no unbaptized person could inherit the 
kingdom of heaven." Then he says, "for although 
the baptism cf infants was invented as early as the close 
of the second century^ the sprinkling of infants was 
not regularly introduced until 753," &c. Now, 
reader, will he say that the church of Rome existed 
at the close of the second century? If he will con- 
tinue to display his want of acquaintance with 
church history, or to say and unsay in the same 
paragraph, that is not my fault. I shall show the 
reader before I have done with his letters, that 
there are some other things that need a salvo. 

What I said of the Waldenses being Pedobaptists, 
and the proof 1 adduced, has not been set aside by 
what Mr. B. has adduced from Mr. Jones and 
Mosheim. I cannot believe that Mr. B. himself 
thought the evidence in pouit; for immediately after 
adducing his testimony, he says, 'Still I do not 



240 

build upon this my views of the kingdom of Christ. 
No: I have a better manual.' Then he refers to the 
*vi7ord of his king,' and to the 'commission,' ^He that 
believeth and is baptized.' He says, 'this puts an end 
to the controversy in my mind.' This, after all, is the 
only argument the Baptists have against infant bap- 
tism. 

Mr. B., page 41, drags in the subject of ordi- 
nation, and asks with a haughty air, ''What right 
had Mr, Wesley to ordain bishops and priest sT^ and 
introduces Dr. Cook's book, as though he believed 
the doctor's views. Now reader, when Mr. B. and 
myself are done with the subject of baptism, if he 
prefers a controversy with me on ordination and suc- 
cession; then I shall think it the most proper time 
to answer his question relative to Mr. Wesley. Un- 
til then, I refer him on that subject to Bishop 
Emory's 'Defence of our Fathers,' and to Dr. Isaac's 
on 'Ecclesiastical Claims.' 

On page 42, we have another instance of the 
gentleman^s complaining without cause. Instead of 
quoting my language in the case, he make a despe- 
rate effort to excite public sympathy in his favor. He 
says, "I am truly sorry to find that you are willing 
to sustain your cause by an attack upon my motives,'' 



241 

"You represent me (page 35) as being ^prepared 
to make a sacrifice of all historical evidence upon 
the altar of a prejudice that is both deaf and blind^' 
&c. I represented no such thing. I did not say a 
word about his sacrificing at any altar. I did not 
mention his name or allude to him in the sentence^ 
the latter part of which only he quotes. And, if he 
had sneered at the conduct and feelings of mothers, 
who wished to have their children baptized before 
they died, was it not much worse in him to sneer, 
than for me to allude to his having done it? If he 
had not done it, why did he not deny it, instead of 
giving his readers a display about 'the talents, and 
dignity of a presiding elder,' about 'Goliath and 
David,' and 'policy,' and 'common politeness,' 6lc. 

Now, candid reader, I never supposed the impor- 
tant and responsible office which I held, when 1 an- 
swered Mr. B., gave me any increase of talents or dig- 
nity. If it did, however, as he intimates, as my 
term of service, according to our economy, has now 
expired, he will have the consolation to know, that 
he contends with one in a different capacity, only an 
elder, like himself. It is possible Mr. B. may be 
able to teach me 'policy,^ as I do not profess to be 
an adept in craftiness. I suppose the intelligent 



242 

reader of his letters, will conclude that if I should 
need lessons in 'common politeness,'^ it will be neces- 
sary for me to seek some other teacher. 

Mr. B. invited me to write on baptism, and I com- 
plied, perhaps not to his mind or liking. Notwith- 
standing he invited me to write, and oflered induce- 
ments to me, he says, page 43, "I neglected my dis- 
trict, in order to write these eighty pages.'' And 
gives this in such a way, as to lead his readers to 
suppose, that he quoted it from the 'Appeal, page 4.' 
I have only to say, that this is a sin of which I am 
not guilty, and I have no fears that it will be im- 
puted to me by those who know me. If Mr. B. can 
help his cause by any such groundless allegations, 
and can find that his conscience will sustain him, in 
being an 'accuser of the brethren,' he has my full 
consent to avail himself of it. It will occur to the 
reader, however, that, that must be a bad cause which 
needs such support, 'I speak as unto wise men.' 

The case of Simon, the sorcerer, which I dwelt 
upon in my Appeal, seems to have presented some 
difficulty in the way of Mr B's views. He touches 
it on page 44, and then drops it as though it burnt 
him. He again comes up to it, page 47, and, after 
all, blinks the question involved in the case, think- 



243 

ing, I suppose, that it was prudent not Ho follow me' 
in that ease, as it presented 'a two-horned dilemma.' 

His affecting, on page 44, not to understand my 
remarks relative to Apollos, because as he says, 'I 
have not expressed myself with clearness,' is one of 
his stratagems of warfare. What I said relative to 
Apollos, and Saul of Tarsus, I produced plain scrip- 
ture to support. As it is utterly impossible that his 
readers can have any tolerable idea of my argument 
on the subject of adult candidates for baptism, from 
the manner in which he has represented it in his 
letters, I beg leave to refer them to the first Appeal, 
page 42, 43, 44, 45. A dust may be raised to ob- 
scure the truth, but it is hard to reason successfully 
against the facts stated in the scriptures of truth. 

Mr. B. says, page 46, 'None are really willing, 
but those who are really converted.' This has a 
strong spice of '?fEw divinity.' The apostle Paul, 
I think in Rom. vii, teaches an opposite doctrine; 
showing that there may be a will to good, while there 
is the absence of moral power to perform it, 'For the good 
that I would, I do not; hut the evil that I would not, that 
Ido,^ Mr. B. thinks on the same page, that because 
'Faith comes by hearing,'^ therefore the falling of 
the Holy Ghost, upon Cornehus, had nothing to do 
22 



2U 

with his believing in Christ; he should have recol- 
lected that faith is said to be 'of the operation of 
God,^ as well as to come by hearing. He says, to 
be sure, page 43, "I believe that men need the in- 
fluence of the Spirit, in order to their becoming real 
believers, genuine converts; but this influence is no 
where called 'receiving the Holy Ghost.' " Here is 
truly a distinction, without a difference. Query, is 
there any difference between 'the Spirit' and 'the 
Holy Ghost?' Query, can a man be influenced by 
the Spirit, before he receives the Holy Ghost? But he 
will have it, that receiving the Holy Ghost, signi- 
fies his 'extraordinary infMcnce,^ Joel says, 'It 
shall come to pass in the last days, (saith God.) that 
I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh;' Joel ii, 
28, 32. And their 'being filled with the Holy 
Ghost' on the day of Pentecost, Peter said, Acts ii, 
16, 'Is that which was spoken by the prophet JoeV Now, 
the pouring out of the Spirit, in Peter's judgment, is 
the same as being filled with the Holy Ghost; and 
Joel, so far from limiting it to the 'extraordinary in^ 
fluence^ of the Spirit, given in primitive times, says 
'God will pour it out upon allflesh,^ The question 
to be settled by the reader is a very plain one, viz: 
is the Spirit in its extraordinary influences poured 



245 

out upon all flesh? To ask the question is to answer 
it. The reader knows that it is not. Then you are 
to decide between the word of 'the King,' by the 
mouth of St. Peter, (interpreting the words of Joel,) 
and the theory of Mr. Broaddus. 

He knew that I had pronounced the 'repetition of 
Christian baptism to be profane,' page 46, and yet by 
wresting my words from their proper connection, he 
attempts to make out that, 'according to my show- 
ing,^ those who believe, in adult age, are 'fit sub- 
jects' of baptism, although they may have been bap- 
tized in infancy. And adds, 'if you refuse to bap- 
tize him, you may expect him to leave you, and 
come over to us, without our compassing sea and 
land to proselyte him;' page 47. After all the at- 
tempts of such men as Mr. B., and those who, like 
him, make light of infant baptism, I have known but 
very few intelligent persons who have been dissatis- 
fied with their baptism in infancy. Most of those 
with whom their proselyting efforts have succeeded, 
were those who had never received infant baptism, 
and had been accustomed to hear it ridiculed, as 
'baby sprinkling,^ 'a relic of popery,^ &c. 

Mr. B. says, page 48, in giving his six reasons for 
opposing 'infant baptism,' that he would 'rather 



246 

grieve over the distress of an affectionate mother, 
whose tender infants have died without the 'sealing 
ordinance,' than to 'sneer;' and adds, 'if I sneer at 
all, it shall be at the conduct of those who require 
this unscriptural dedication at their hands.' Now, 
reader, it is to be hoped, that in future he will not 
sneer at all, and I have some reason to hope that he 
will quit that mode of argument^ at least when he 
writes. I believe his Letters of ninety pages, con- 
tain less of the article than his Sermon of forty-two ^ 
pages. This, however, may have arisen from the 
fact, that he had himself and me, to attend to, and | 
had not time to devote to the distressed women, and 
their dying children. 

One of the principal among his six reasons is, 
'That it tends to defeat the original design of bap- 
tism.' He says, "All agree that baptism was de- 
signed by the great Head of the church, to separate 
his church from the world. Now, suppose all to be 
baptized in infancy; then the whole world would be 
in the church, and the church, instead of being 'a 
congregation of faithful men,' 'would include infidels 
and unbelievers of every description;' their right 
to a place in it being secured to them hy their hap- 
tism>^^ Candid reader, might not a congregation of 



247 

Baptists, baptized in adult age, 'contain infidels and 
unbelievers of every description,' and would that 
prove aught against 'adult baptism?' Just as much 
as Mr. B's argument does against infant baptism. 
But he says baptism separates the church from the 
world, and that 'a right to a place in the church is 
secured hy baptism,'' On what ground, then, can 
the Baptists deprive those who have been baptized 
of their right of church member ship ^ by expelling 
them, however immoral or infidel they may be, as 
baptism has separated them from the ivorld? 

His attempt to connect infant baptism with pope- 
ry, is a stratagem with which he seems very fa- 
miliar; and he more than intimates, that the sup- 
port of infant baptism is traditionary only. He says, 
"getting their 'pattern' from tradition instead of the 
bible.'' This is a pitiful attempt to narroiv down 
the evidence for infant baptism, to what he knew 
w^as considered only as collateral, viz: The testimony 
of the Fathers, or the practice of the church as the 
Fathers have detailed it. Why does he not allude 
to the fact, (in connection with this subject,) that 
the Greek church, having no connection with the Pope, 
have, notwithstanding, always held and practiced 
infant baptism? He does not allude to this plainly, 
22* 



248 

because he knows, if he can make an impression 
on the public mind, that infant baptism is 'a rehc of 
popery,' and supported only by the same kind of 
evidence as the errors of the Romish church, then 
he will succeed in exciting a prejudice against it, 
that will help his cause. Why does not this gen- 
tleman level his artillery against popery direct? 
Instead of engaging in this war against our chil- 
dren, why does he not use his influence in pointing 
out and reforming the errors of the Romish church, 
such as transubstantiation, masses, <&;c.? As I am 
not blest with the same power of perceiving the hor- 
rible evils which this gentleman sees growing out 
of the practice of infant baptism, the reader will not 
be surprised that I consider the evils of which he 
complains, as existing in his own imagination, and 
not in sober reality, I am still of the opinion that 
my ^witty dialogue^'' as he is pleased to call it, con- 
tains 'the head and front' of the offence of this mat- 
ter. 

On the subject of the 'baptism of households,' Mr. 
B. and myself are fairly at issue, especially with re- 
gard to the signification of the term oikos^ the orig- 
inal term used in those passages that contain the 
account of the baptism of the households of Crispus, 



249 

the jailor, and Lydia in the Acts of the Apostles. 
I will attend to this matter of difference^ between 
us, when we have settled some other things. 
We expressed some anxiety to know something of 
the 'four households j' that Mr. B. said he had bap- 
tized; but he has not had the goodness to follow the 
example of St. Luke in this matter, and give us the 
names and residences of his Lydia's and their house- 
holds. Surely those remarkable cases might be 
given with advantage to the cause, if indeed he is 
not more blessed in concealing than he would be in 
publishing them. This by the way. 

On page 25, he says, "In my Sermon, I did not 
even conjecture who they ('Lydia's household') were, 
although you represent me as supposing many things 
with respect to them." How strange it is, that this 
gentleman will make such unqualified declarations, 
when the means for his conviction are before the 
public. In his Sermon, page 10, he says, 'Who 
then were Lydia's household? Were they partners 
in her mercantile operations'^ This might he so. Were 
they 'journeymen dyers?' Possibly they were. Or 
were they mere travelling companions?'''' (fee. "They 
were brethren^ whom Paul and Silas comforted 
when they were about to leave the city; and could 



250 

any but believers be hrethren capable of being com- 
forted?" Here, the reader will perceive, is a string 
of questions, put by this gentleman in his Sermon, 
for what? why obviously to convey his sentiments 
to his readers, in the case, or to mislead their minds, 
and deceive them. And yet, after all these ques- 
tions asked by him, he says, as you see above, '/ did 
not even conjecture who they were^ and declares, 'I 
represent him as supposing many things with res- 
pect to them.' So I did represent him as supposing 
some things at least; and if I have misrepresented 
him in representing that when he asked those ques- 
tions, and answered them, he honestly meant what 
he said, instead of intending to trifle with his vedi^- 
evs, then I ask pardon for thus misrepresenting the gen- 
tleman^ and hope he will extend it to me as he has 
kindly offered to do in one of his letters, in another 
case. The truth is, candid reader, the Baptists have 
always found it a difficult task to make out a family 
for Lydia, without supposing that she had children. 
And, in order to help themselves in the case, some 
have supposed one thing, and some another. Some 
have thouo^ht that some of the women of whom we 
read, verse 13, were Lydia's household. Others 
discovering that the word 'hi-ethren^ occurs in the 



251 

40th verse, and finding that it would be hard work 
to transform those 'women'' into 'brethren,^ have con- 
cluded that they were 'partners in business' with 
Lydia, or 'journeymen dyers.' Mr. B.. however, 
(as he can find an 'express warrant^ for 'female com- 
munion in every passage where the supper is men- 
tioned,' and, of course, can find women in the pas- 
sage where the apostle says, "Let a man examine 
hoiself;" "Wherefore 'my brethren'' when ye come 
together to eat," &;c. &;c. 1 Cor. xi, 28, 33,) one would 
think, could have found no great difficulty in hold- 
ing both the above hypothesis, as 'the brethren' com- 
forted would surely include Lydia's women, and 
journey7new dyers also. 

It was not at all necessary for Mr. B. to make 
such a flourish about his 'little anecdote' as he calls 
it, and to put his readers to the trouble of examin- 
ing the scriptures before they could find out his 
meaning. I did, at Upperville, notice that old pre- 
scription of the Baptists for finding a family for 
Lydia, by supposing she had 'journeymen dyers,' 
but / did not claim the honor of inventing it, as Mr. 
B's informant must have known, if he attended to 
what was said. I gave it as a part of the argument 
of the Baptists. I presume Mr. B. has heard for 



252 

years of this 'choice piece of wit,' as he is pleased 
to call it, and I will not say, has often used it him- 
self. The reader will find this supposition about 
Lydia's dyers, noticed in Watson's Institutes, part 
4th, page 394, and to show that I do not claim to 
be father of this precious creature of the imagina- 
tion, [ will give the words of Mr. Watson. He 
says, "Then, as if to mark more strikingly the 
hopelessness of the attempt, to torture this passage 
to favor an opinion, 'her house' is made to consist of 
journeymen dyers, 'employed in preparing the pur- 
ple she sold;' and 'to complete the whole, these jour- 
neymen dyers, although not a word is said of their 
conversion, nor even of their existence^ in the whole 
story, are raised into 'the brethren." 

Mr. B. says, page 27, "That Timothy and Luke 
could not have been 'the brethren that Paul comfort- 
ed,' before he departed, because 'Timothy and Luke 
went with Paul to Beria,' as I may see, he says, by 
consulting chap, xvii, 10 to 16. I have consulted 
the passage, and cannot see any such thing, for the 
best of all reasons, i. e. it is not there to be seen. 
Mr. Wesley says in his note on the place, 'St. Luke 
seems to have been left at Philippi.' And if the 
reader will be at the pains to look at the 20th chap- 



233 

ter, 5th and 6th verses, he will see that Luke does 
not fail in with Paul until they met at Troas. He 
leaves off speaking of himself as one of Paul's com- 
pany, in the 16th chapter, and does not resume that 
style again until the 20th chapter. So Mr. B. will 
have to look again, and if he sees clearly, he will 
then perceive that Paul went from Pkilippi to 
Thessilonica, and when a tumult arose there, the 
brethren sent him and Silas to Beria. Surely, can- 
did reader, you will think that a gentleman who 
blunders as often as Mr. B. does in his statements as 
facts^ ought either to be more carefal^ or less con^ 
Jident in making them!! 

After carefully noticing his third effort to explain 
this case, so as to operate against the baptism of 
children, I am entirely satisfied that the solution I 
gave in my 'Appeal' is not to be set aside by Mr- 
B. at least, as I propose further to demonstrate. 

He has so arranged the words on page 27, as to 
cause them to make an utterly false impression on 
the mind of the reader. I do not sav that he intend* 
ed this. I do not speak of his motives, but of the 
fact. He says, ''1 do think, if your 'wise men' will 
but consider that Paul and Silas went into the house 
of Lydia^ and 'comforted the brethren,' it will ap- 



I 



254 

pear to them much more improbable' that they were 
visiting brethren, than that they belonged to the 
family of Lydia.'' The reader will observe he 
puts the words into the house of Lydia, in italics, 
then connects them with 'comforted the brethren' by 
the copulative conjunction 'and;' I aver, upon the au- 
thority of common sense, that no man in reading 
the passage in Acts, without note, or comment, would 
ever receive from it any such impression as his man- 
ner of presenting it gives. The words of Luke are, 
^And they went out of the prison, and entered into the 
house of Lydia: and when they had seen the brethren, they 
comforted them, and departed. Acts xvi, 40. 

I shall now proceed to examine the matter at 
issue between Mr. B. and Mr. Taylor, the editor of 
Calmet's Dictionary, as quoted by myself. Mr. B. 
says he does not know who this gentleman is, nor 
has he ever heard before of the passage I quoted. , 
Has that gentleman never read the celebrated de- ^ 
bate between Mr. Alexander Campbell, and Mr. 
Maccalla, which took place in Kentucky. I should 
suppose he has, from the great similarity between 
some of Mr. B's and Mr. C's criticisms. In this 
debate Mr. Taylor is referred to as authority, and 
his and Dr. Rice's criticism was adopted by Mr. 

i 



255 

Maccalla. Mr. Campbell pronounced the criticism 
?i 'refuge of lies ^"^ Mr. B. says it is 'a palpable 
misrepresentation.^ This criticism of Mr. Taylor's 
is not only sustained by Dr. Rice, Mr. Maccalla, and 
Mr. Ralston, but in substance by Peter Edwards 
also. I might rest the argument here, with confi- 
dence of its being satisfactory to the candid; but 
shall proceed to examine some of the evidence that 
Mr. B. has produced, in order to show, (as he says,) 
that Mr. Taylor has led me ^completely astray.' He 
says, "I will not furnish 'three hundred' instances, 
nor even 'fifty,' but I will furnish enough to satisfy 
the most skeptical, that the sacred writers used the 
two words interchangeably.'' 

The first case he mentions is Luke viii, 41, and 
51, where there is an account of raising the little 
daughter of Jairus. In the 41st verse, there is an 
evident allusion to the family^ as the family needed 
his help, and the word is oikos. In the 51st verse, 
the dwelling is spoken of, and the word is oikia^ 
confirming Taylor's criticism. Luke Xj 5, is Mr. 
B's next proof, — 'Into whatsoever house ye enter, 
say, peace be to this house.' Here again in the first 
part of the verse the dwelling is meant; in the last 

part of the verse the family is meant; because Christ 
23 



256 

did not command his apostles to say, peace be to the 
timbers, or brick, or stone, that formed the dwelling 
into which they entered, but peace be to the family, 
the oikoss This more fully confirms the view given 
in my former argument. Mr. B. says, 'Jesus calls 
his father's house both oikos and oikia,^ and refers to 
John ii, 16; xvi, 2. In the first passage the temple 
is spoken of, and the word is oikos, because in this 
case the container is put for the contained, as the 
temple was the residence of the congregation, Hhe 
visible family of God.' In the other passage he re- 
fers to, there is no such word in my bible, and I use 
the 'common version.' It is possible he made a mis- 
take, and referred to John xvi, instead xiv, 2, — there 
the word is oikia, but it refers to heaven, and I sup- 
pose the reader will conclude that the earthly tem- 
ple and the invisible heaven are not exactly the same 
thing. 

The next case he adduces is the case of the oikos 
of Stephanas, 1 Cor. i, 16, and xvi, 15, — the apos- 
tle says, ^I baptized also the household (oikos) of 
Stephanas;' and in the close of that epistle he men- 
tions the household {oikia) of Stephanas; and says 
to the Corinthian church, 'ye know the house of 
Stephanas,' dz;c In referring to the baptism of Ste- 



257 

phanas and his family, he uses the word oiJcos^ but 
in referring to the family's having 'addicted them- 
selves to the ministry of the saints,' he uses the word 
oikia, evidently alluding to the whole domestic es- 
tablishment. This is the same course pursued by 
St. Luke in Acts xvi, 32, 'And they spake unto him 
(the jailor) the word of the Lord, and to all that 
were in his house,' (oiJcia,) — doubtless the whole do- 
mestic establishment were summoned to the preach- 
ing, and heard the word of the Lord, but there is no 
mention of any one inquiring about salvation but the 
jailor. And when the apostle said, 'believe on the 
Lord Jesus Christ;' he added, 'and thou shalt be 
saved and thy house' (oikos,) — and he and all his 
were baptized straightway, and he brought Paul and 
Silas out of the outer prison, where the preaching 
took place, into his family apartment, called by Luke 
his oikos» Where the baptism of Lydia's family is 
spoken of in the 15th verse, the same word is used, 
'And when she was baptized and her household 
(oikos,y &;c., evidently her family and her children 
are meant, as scholars have said, and as we shall 
show more fully hereafter. The next evidence Mr. 
B. adduces, is John xi, 20 and 31 — where the dwell- 
ing of Mary and Martha is called both oikos and 



258 

oikia; but this is no proof against Mr. Taylor's criti- 
cism, for he says, 'when oikos is spoken of persons, 
it denotes a family of children;' but Mr. B's proof 
does not present a case in point, for the passage re- 
fers not to 'persons^ but altogether to a dwelling 
house. I suppose the intelligent reader can see the 
difference. 

After adducing the above quotations, addressing 
me, he says, "How conclusively, Mr. S. do these 
passages show the fallacy of the distinction which 
your 'editor' makes between oikos and oikia.^^ 
Then, thinking I presume, that, conclusive as the 
evidence he had given already might be, it would 
not be amiss to 'make certainty more certain,' he 
adds an evidence or two more. One we will notice, 
the other is not material, as it proves nothing to 
the point, and we have noticed it above. The one 
we remark upon is Matt x, xiii, 'If the house (oikia) 
be worthy,' &;c. I suppose this refers, as I said 
above, to the whole domestic establishment. 

In the parallel passage, Luke x, 5, the words 
are, 'Into whatsoever house (oikia) ye enter, say 
peace be to this house,' (oikos) — the minister enters 
the dwelling (oikia) and says peace be to the family, 
(oikos,) these words differing sometimes in passages 



259 

that are parallel, may have arisen out of the care- 
I essness of transcribers, for I suppose they could as 
easily mistake in transcribing, and put one of those 
words for the other, as Mr. B. could mistake, as the 
reader has seen above, in referring to a text for 
oikia, where no such word exists. I do not blame 
Mr. B., nor would 1 blame a transcriber, for an un- 
intentional mistake. Having noticed Mr. B's evi- 
dence at length, 1 shall now proceed to adduce 
some additional testimony in favor of my view. 

I do not deny that oikos is used figuratively for a 
dwelling tiouse, because in such cases, the container 
is put for the contained^ as is very commonly the 
case in our own language. 

The first proof I shall adduce is from Num. xvi, 
27 to 32, ''And Dathan and Abiram came out, and 
stood in the door of their tents, and their wives and 
sons, and their little children. And it came to pass 
that the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them 
up, and their houses {oikous.y^ Swallowed up their 
little children as part of their houses. 

But it is used to signify infants exclusively. See 
Deut. XXV, 9. Where the law is alluded to which 
required a brother to take the widow of his deceas- 
ed brother, and raise up a family for, or to, his de- 
23^ 



260 

ceased brother. If he refused to comply according 
to the law, then the widow was to loose his shoe, 
spit in his face, and say, "So shall it be done unto 
that man, that will not build up his brother's house 
(oikon).^^ But how was the brother's house to be 
^built up?^ By his raising a family of children, who 
were to be esteemed the children of the deceased 
brother. 

Again, Ruth iv, 11, 12, "The Lord make the 
woman that is to come into thine house, or dwelling 
place, like Rachel, and like Leah, which two did 
build up the house {oikon) of Israel. And let thy 
house be like the house (oikos) of Phares, which 
Tamar bare unto Judah of the seed which the Lord 
will give thee of this young woman." How was the 
house of Israel built up by Rachel and by Leah? 
Certainly by the children born to them from time 
to time? And how was the house of Boaz to become 
like the house of Phares, but by the infants to be 
born to him by Ruth, and which are styled Hhe 
seed of this young woman?' One more example 
from the Old Testament may be quite sufficient, 
Psalm cxiii, 9, — "He maketh the barren woman to 
keep house {oiko,) and to be a joyful mother of chil- 
dren." In this passage every unbiased reader will 



281 

see, that the barren woman's heart was to be made 
glad by infants to be given to her by the Lord, and 
who were to constitute what is called her 'house^ or 
family. Now, to apply the metaphorical use of the 
word house, as an argument for infant baptism. We 
read in the New Testament of the baptism of Lydia 
and her house, and of the jailor and his house, and 
of Stephanas and his house, or household. The 
question now is, what did the inspired penmen mean, 
by the word 'house'* in the record they have left us 
of these and other family baptisms? They were 
well acquainted with the meaning of the term in the 
Old Testament, as sometimes signifying children se- 
parate from their parents, and little children, and 
infants exclusively. The Jews and Greeks, to whom 
they wrote, attached the same idea to the word. 
When the Jews then read that Lydia and her house 
(oilcos) — the jailor and his house (oikos) — and the 
house (oikos) of Stephanas were baptized, what 
would they, or what could they understand by the 
word in those several passages? Would they not 
understand it according to its most natural import, 
its most generally received sense? i. e. a man or 
woman's children by immediate descent or adoption, 
infants included? But if the system of the Baptists 



262 

is scriptural, and infants are not to be baptized, then 
the inspired penmen have used a word calculated to 
deceive both Jews and GreeJcs, This is not to be 
admitted!! 'I speak as unto wise men, judge ye what 
I say,^ 

We shall now adduce a few other texts, from the 
New Testament, on this point. 

In the Acts of the Apostles, where we find what 
Mr. Booth and Baptist writers generally call 'the 
law of baptism,' carried out in the practice of the 
apostles, the word oiJws occurs twenty-three times, 
and is always the word used where families are 
spoken of as having been baptized. Chap, xi, 12, 
13, 14, the angel said to Cornehus, "Call for Simon, 
whose sirname is Peter, who shall tell thee words 
whereby thou, and all thy house (oikos,) shall be 
saved.'' See Acts xvi, 15, 31, 34. And in the 18th 
chapter, it is used in a way calculated to show, that 
Luke did not consider it as much like oikia as the 
'English word brothers' is like 'brethren.' 7th and 
8th verses, "And he departed thence, and entered 
into a certain man's house (oikia) named Justus, one 
that worshipped God, whose house (oikia) joined 
hard to the synagogue." And when he speaks in 
the next verse of a family, he drops the word which 



263 

he had used twice in the 7th verse, and adopts the 
word which is used in all the cases where family 
baptism is spoken of. "And Crispus, the chief ruler 
of the synagogue believed on the Lord, with all his 
house (oikos:) and many of the Corinthians hearing, 
believed and were baptized." In Heb. xi, 7, it is 
said that "Noah prepared an ark to the saving of 
his house," {oikos,) We know that Noah and his 
family only are meant in this passage. 

Having already consumed more time on these 
words, than I could well spare to a single point in 
the controversy, I must bring this part of the gene- 
ral argument to a close. My only apology to the 
reader, for having said so much on it, is found in the 
confident air with which Mr. B. denounced this 
criticism of my 'editor' as he calls him. I cannot 
do better than close this article in the words of Mr. 
Taylor, "The natural import of the term oikos, 
family, includes children of all ages. In proof I 
offer yoxx fifty examples; i^ fifty are not sufficient, I 
offer a hundred; if a hundred is not sufficient, two 
hundred; li two hundred are not sufficient, ybwr hun- 
dred, I affirm that oikos very often expresses 
the presence of infants. Of this I offer you fifty ex- 
amples, and if you admit classical instances, fifty 



264 

more. I tell you also, that somewhat more than 
three hundred instances have been examined^ and 
have proved perfectly satisfactory." Concluding ^ 
Facts, &c., p. 13, 14. 

The intelligent reader can now judge, whether I , 
have built upon '//zere presumption^'^ as Mr. B says I \ 
have, (in maintaining 'infant baptism' from the cases 
of household or family baptism, recorded in the ora- 
cles of God,) or whether I have built upon the solid 
foundation of immutable truths and incontrovertible 
facts. To all, to every candid parent in the land, I 
would address myself, and say ^your'^ children's 'ad- 
vocate must be yours*"* 

Before I proceed to the review of Mr. B's letters 
relative to the 'mode of baptism,' allow me a re- 
mark upon the closing paragraph of his eleventh let- 
ter. He says, "I will not sum up what I have writ- 
ten, lest you should think of my summary, as I do 
of yours." This is in keeping with his first reason, 
for not being willing to engage in an oral discussion 
with me. If he had summed up what he had said 
in his letters, his readers could have seen more 
easily how small a portion of my argument he had 
even attempted to answer. But I forget myself 
when I talk about arguments for Pedobaptist vieivs^ 



265 

Mr. B. says, Hhere are none in the wide compass of creation,^ 
But our readers will not believe this. They will 
give the word of God its plain, unsophisticated mean- 
ing, when their sight is not obscured by the dust 
raised by those who 'darken counsel.' And know- 
ing, as the public do, that the term children means infants 
as well as larger children; and knowing also, that in any 
given district of country, a majority of families have in- 
fants, or young children in them, they naturally conclude 
that there must have been infants in some of those families 
baptized by the apostles. 

We shall now proceed to notice some things in 
the remaining ten letters, in which Mr. B. notices 
the 'mode of baptism.' 

He begins, on page 51, with the same fancy, 
(which we replied to in the former argument,) about 
the distinction between moral and positive institu- 
tions, and the explicit and ^minutely defined^ direc- 
tions for the observance of the latter. He says — 
"To me it is most obvious, that ^positive institution 
must be minutely defined by the law-giver, and 
obeyed to the very letter by the subject, or else it 
can be of no service whatever." Observe, reader! 
'minutely defined,^ He refers to Leviticus, xiv, 
where the ceremony of cleansing a leper is detailed. 
Why did he not quote a little more of the ceremony 



' 266 

than the ^dipping of the finger of the priest' in the 
oil? If he had, the reader would have seen a case 
corroborating our views of the mode of baptism. 
For, although the leprous man washed his clothes 
and his person in water, before he was presented at 
the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, yet 
this he did himself in private; but when the priest, 
the minister of God, went to perform the piirifica- 
tioriy or cleansing of the leper, both the blood and 
OIL WERE SPRINKLED, and in the same manner, was 
a leprous house to be cleansed. See vs. 6, 7, 8, 9, ^[ 
11, 16, 19, 51. 

As I had asked for 'detailed, explicit directions 
about the manner of performing the positive insti- 
tutes'' of circumcision and the Lord's supper, Mr. 
B. seems to feel bound to give them, and sets him- 
self to work to furnish the explicit directions in both 
those cases. On the institute of circumcision, he 
says, "Read Gen. xvii, 11. I hope you will not 
suppose that any thing would have passed for cir- 
cumcision, except what is there required." I wish 
Mr. B. had more frequently given the words of the 
passages he refers to, and this he might have done 
(by leaving out some of his many complaints,) with- 
out increasing the number of pages in his reply. 



267 

Then his letters would have had in them fewer of 
the words of 7nan, and more of the words of God, 
This, by the way. As he did not give the reader 
the words of the law of circumcision, I shall have 
to do it, here they are — ''And ye shall circumcise 
the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall he a token 
of the covenant betivixt me and you.^^ Here are 
what he calls ''explicit directions,''^ a "minutely de- 
fined,^^ positive institute. Does the reader see any 
explicitness in the directions? Do they say 2vho is 
to perform the rite? Perhaps Mr. B. will say the 
father was to be priest in the case. Very good. 
Then none other was quahiied to perform it, for he 
says, 'the law must be obeyed to the very letter;^ 
but then this will be opposed to the fads. For al- 
though Abraham performed the rite for Ishmael and 
the men of his house, v. 23, yet it is evident from 
V. 24, that he was not the operator in his own case. 
It is again far more evident, from Ex. iv, 25, and 
Luke i, 59, that neither Moses nor Zacharias per- 
formed the rite upon their sons, although the fathers 
were present in each case. 1 suppose, candid reader, 
you wdll hardly receive views that contradict facts. 
So, it seems this law does not 'minutely define' who 

was to be the operator in keeping the law of circum- 
24 



268 

cision. I ask again, with what kind of instrument 
was the rite to be performed? Was it a knife? 
Perhaps I shall be told it was. But then, a knife 
could not have been necessary to the valid perform- 
ance of the rite, for the wife of Moses performed 
the rite upon her son with a 'sharp stone.^ Ex. iv, 
25. I ask again, — Where was the rite to be per- 
formed, and at what time of the day, or night? The 
law does not specify; Ishmael received the rite in 
his father's house; Moses's son received it at an inn, 
and the people of Israel were circumcised in the 
camp. Josh, v, 8. Now, I ask the candid reader, 
what has become of Mr. O's 'minutely defined,'^ 
'explicit directions,"^ of the law of the positive in- 
stitute of circumcision? They have vanished out of 
sight, and I incline to think you will not be able to 
discern them again, without the aid of Mr. B's mi- 
croscopic glasses. But let us examine a little, his 
'explicit directions^ about the Lord's supper. P. 52, 
he says — "You inquire also, whether the Scriptures 
give specific directions about the manner of attend- 
ing to the Lord's supper. I answer, yes, ve?^ ex- 
plicit. Read 1 Cor. xi, 23 to 26, and you will see 
such a description, as can leave us at no loss what- 
ever on the subjects" In this case also, he does not 



269 

favor us with the words that contain the ^very ex- 
plicit directions. Here they are from St. Paul, — 
"jPor 1 have received of the Lord, that which also I de- 
livered unto ijou, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in 
which he ivas hetrayed, took hread: And when he had 
given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my 
body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of 
me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he 
had supped, saying. This cup is the JVew Testament in 
my blood: this do ye, as oft ye drink it, in remembrance 
of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this 
cup, ye do shew the Lord^s death till he comeJ^^ Does the 
reader see any ^very explicit directions^ here? Does this 
passage specify the posture in which we are to receive 
the supper? No — hence some take it kneeling^ 
some sitting, and others standing. Does it specify 
the kind of bread to be used, whether leavened or 
unleavened, whether wheat or some other kind? I 
answer, no. Does it specify what kind of wine is 
to be used, whether red or white, fermented, or un- 
fermented wine? The reader knows it does not. 
Does it specify the quantity of each, that is to be 
used by the communicant? I answer again it does 
not. And yet our Lord and his Apostle, have said, 
'This do.'' The simple fact, that bread and wine 
are to be taken, in remembrance of Christ, is all the 



270 

specification there is in the passage. Water is to 
be appHecl to the subject in the institute of baptism, 
and bread and wine are to be used in the Lord's 
supper. So that Mr. B's 'specified directions,' 'mi- 
nutely defined,' turn out to be of the same character 
with his 'express warrant,' his Thus saith the Lord; 
for female communion. I remark, by the way, if 
the Baptists were never to immerse any person, until 
they find in the 'law of baptism,' as they call it, 
'minutely defined directions^ for the observance of 
the rite; we should soon have an end to baptism 
by immersion* But when they are pressed here, 
they say the Scriptures know nothing for baptism, 
but 'believers' immersion,' and when you demand the 
proof, they fly to the word baptizo, and tell you 
gravely, that the 'explicit directions^ are all in that 
word. They take care, however, not to go to the 
original meaning of deipnon the word used, 1 Cor. 
xi, 20, for the supper. Because that signifies not 
simply a meal, but was used for the principal meal 
among the Greeks. They know there is no con- 
sistency, in crying out for much water in one sacra- 
ment, and being content to consider the law of the 
other sacrament fully complied with, in eating a 
small piece of bread and tasting tvine. We are 



271 

told by a certain Baptist writer, who saw the diffi- 
culty here hinted at; "It is not necessary to take 
much bread and wine in the Lord's supper, in order 
to comply with the command, 'Do this' — because 
the action is the same, in eating, whether we eat 
little or much.^^ I answer — in baptism it is not ne- 
cessary to use muck water, because the element is 
the same, whether we use little or much; unless, in- 
deed, it can be shown, that there is a charm in the 
elements, used in the sacraments. If this can be 
shown, then the larger the quantity the better, used 
in either!!! I suppose, however, this will not be at- 
tempted, especially by those who profess to be so 
much afraid of encouraging popish errors! !! 

It might, we think, be easily shown, that accord- 
ing to the position laid down by Mr. B. relative to 
'positive institutes'^ and the necessity of a literal 
compliance with every circumstance connected with 
their institution, that no denomination of Christians, 
the Baptists not excepted, do at this day, properly 
observe the sacrament of the Lord's supper. 1. It 
was instituted at night, 2. Only men were present 
at it. 3. Unleavened bread doubtless was used, 
because the Jews kept no other kind in their houses 

at the time of the passover. 4. It was celebrated 
24* 



272 

in an upper room. 5. It was celebrated at a par- 
ticular time of the year, &;c. Now, Mr. B. says— 
"v2 'positive institute^ must be minutely defined^ by the 
lawgiver^ and obeyed to the very letter, by the subject, or 
else it can be of no service whatever.''^ This, the reader 
will observe, stands opposed to Mr. B's own prac- 
tice, in the observance of the sacrament of the sup- 
per. This literal conformity, he did not intend 
should be pressed against his own practice. He 
only mentioned it in connection with circumcision, 
and the Lord's supper, because, in my former argu* 
ment, I had placed those cases against his theory. 
So I return to the gentleman one of the many com- 
pliments of his 'letters' — 'The legs of the lame are not 
equal,^ 

Mr. B. repeats a part of what he said in his stric- 
tures, and sermon, about king James, the bishops, 
and translators, and says, 'the present version, with 
all its defects, is against sprinkling.^ And adds, 'I 
only complain that it is not more against sprinkling, 
than it is.' As the Baptists have withdrawn from 
the 'American Bible Society,' because the board 
would not appropriate funds to make a different 
translation in a foreign tongue from the common 
version, I suppose they will soon have a version of 
their own, and this gentleman may then be suited. 



273 

It is due to many of the liberal minded Baptists, 
however, to say, that they disapprove of this mea- 
sure. I suppose they think well of the 'common 
version,' as did the learned Drs. Middleton and 
Doddridge; and Dr. John Taylor, of Norwich, al- 
though he held a different creed from that held by 
the bishops. 

I made no charore aojainst Mr. B. relative to the 
translators and bishops, which is not fully sustained 
by his own statements. He represented, in the ser- 
mon, p. 28, that the translators "i^ere so fully convinced 
that the Greek verb haptizo, ought to be translated im- 
merse, that we should have had it immerse^ in our version^ 
hut for the interposition of the biohops^ In the Stric- 
tures, p. 13, he says — ^^But our translators, being all 
OPPOSED TO IMMERSION, it IS uo wonder they did not 
render the word into EnglishJ^ And yet he says — "i 
have not charged the translators and bishops with making 
a translation to favor sprinkling, "^^ And says of me, 
that I have, in this case, '^dealt freely in the article of 
misrepresentation^^ The candid reader will be able to 
judge, from his words given above, whether / have 
'borne false witness' against him. Or whether he 
has not denied his own charge, formerly made against 
those 'dead men;' "7/" he is ashamed of it now, it is wellP^ 
It would be well also, if he would examine always, 



274 

what he has said^ before he enters his flat denial of 
things alleged against him. It is unpleasant to me, 
to be compelled, in self-defence, thus to expose the 
gentleman's contradictions of his own statements. 

On p. 54, he says, that the reason why I have 
* found it necessary to preach so often on baptism, is, 
that 'the people have not learning and ingenuity 
enough to find sprinkling or pouring for baptism in 
the present version,' of the scriptures. And con- 
cludes that, as ''many of our people are, at one time or 
another, uneasy about baptism; there must be some 'glo- 
rious uncertainty,^ about the sprinkling and pouring,'^'* 
And he judged this last sentence so important, that 
it was necessary to call attention to it, by marking 
it with two 0^..C0. 

It is true candid reader, that some Pedobaptist peo- 
ple get uneasy sometimes on the subject of baptism, 
by immersion; I have not, however, known of many 
cases of the kind, and when they have occurred, so 
far as my observation has extended, their uneasiness 
has not arisen half so often, from reading the Bible, 
as from having enjoyed the company, or conversation 
of some Jesuitical immersionist. And where our 
people have the Bible, and the Spirit of God to guide 
them, and none to perplex their minds, we hardly 



275 

ever find it necessary to speak of the mode of bap- 
tism. We have passed whole years in some places, 
without preaching one sermon on the subject; where 
our people had not been exposed to the 'slight of men' 
who seek on all occasions to mske p?'oselytes to opiii- 
ions about ceremonies^ with more zeal than to teach 
men, how to 'worship God in spirit and in 
truth!!!' 

He closes his 12th letter, with an anecdote about 
an Indian, who had a bible given him, by a Pedobap- 
tist missionary, which became instrumental in his 
salvation, — the missionary meeting with the Indian 
afterwards, proposed to have water brought in a pitch- 
er^ to a meeting house, in order to baptize the In- 
dian, the latter was astonished at the proposition; be- 
cause as he said the book told him, 'that they bap- 
tized in a river,and where there was much water, and 
were buried in baptism.' And he told the missionary 
'he must give him another book,^ 

Now candid reader, this same Indian story looks 
very much like it was made for effect, and I strongly 
suspect that some one of a lighter skin, had some- 
thing to do with its fabrication. It may have 'Esau^s 
hancW but it certainly 'has JacoVs voice,^ and it may 
impose upon some blind Isaac > Mr. B. says, he 'does 



276 

not vouch for the truth of the story.' I judge this 
Indian story to be of a piece with the 'negro' story 
which he tells in his^ letters; and the story about the 
lady who was visited by several ministers, whose 
husband finally 'concluded that it was safest for her 
to be immersed,'* All such stories are but tubs for 
the whale. We could tell some story too, of an op- 
posite description, if we did not consider such busi- 
ness degrading to the understanding of the writer, 
and an insult to the intelligence of the reader. 

But suppose this 'Indian story' is literally true, 
what then? — is it not extremely likely, that he had, 
previously to seeing the missionary at the meeting 
house, fallen in with some wandering 'new-light 
Baptist' in the 'Great Valley,' and had taken a les- 
son or two from him?'^ Or, if it occurred recently, 
possibly he may have met with a copy of Mr, B^s ^Stric- 
tures,'* if any copies have, by any means, reached the 
'Valley' of the Mississippi. For I am very certain 
that the Indian, reading in the 'book' which the mis- 
sionary gave him, of the baptisms of the jailor, Saul, 
and Cornelius and his family, saw nothing about 
either 'a river,' or 'much water.' And suppose the 
missionary did propose to have water brought in 'a 
pitcher,'* he might have pleaded a very good prece* 



277 

dent for his practice. For, as early as the middle 
of the third century, '^vhen Laurentius was brought 
to the stake, to suffer martyrdom, a soldier who was 
employed as one of his executioners, professed to be 
converted, and requested baptism from the hands of 
the martyr. For this purpose a pitcher of water 
was brought, and the soldier baptized at the place of 
execution.^' See Dr. Wall, as quoted by Dr. Mil- 
ler. Here we have one of the 'noble army of mar- 
tyrs' using water from a pitcher for the purpose of 
administering the ordinance; and that too, under 
circumstances so solemn, that none would dare to 
trifle with this ordinance of God. So much for Mr. 
B's Indian, pitcher, &;c. 

Mr. B. attempts, page 57, by a quibble, to evade 
what 1 had said about his translation of Luther's 
'Johannes der Taufer;' why did he not deny that my 
interpretation was correct! instead of saying he 
could convince my friend, from Luther's bible> that 
Luther meant John the Dipper? I have been assur- 
ed by several German scholars, and have found by 
consulting a large German and English Dictionary, 
that my former interpretation was perfectly cor- 
rect. 

Mr. B. says, page 58, that the creed makers, at 



218 

Westminster came within one vote of deciding infa-^ 
vor of immersion J and that but for the casting vote 
of Dr. Lightfoot, we should have had the Presby- 
terians contending for 'immersion.' And then alludes 
to Mr. Campbell's having criticised his sermon from 
the pulpit for two days, 1 do not know that it is my 
province to be the defender of the venerable men 
who composed the Westminster Assembly; I will, 
however, say, that Mr. B. has misrepresented them 
in the statement above given, Neal, in his History 
of the Puritans, says, that "the Directory, (contain- 
ing the baptismal service,) passed the Assembly with 
great unaiiimity.^^ Mr. B. has not given the au- 
thority upon which he has made his statement. And 
for a full refutation of it, I refer the reader to Miller 
on Baptism, pages 147, 148. 

I have now, candid reader, reached that point in 
Mr. B's letters, page 59, where he attempts to vin- 
dicate himself upon the charge of having mutilated 
the writings of Pedobaptist authors. He begins 
with Dr. Clarke; after reading his vindication of 
himself, and his attempt to show that I had been 
guilty of the same thing which I charged upon him, 
I thought, at first, perhaps I had committed some 
oversight in the case. 1 accordingly reviewed the 



279 

matter as it stood in the 'Appeal,' and compared it 
with the Doctor's note on Rom. vi, 4, and find that 
I have been guilty of not quoting all the Doctor 
has said in his Commentary on baptism. I have 
cut no sentence in two; and as for shortening the 
paragraph, by leaving off two complete sentences at 
the end of it, that did not in any measure effect the 
argument, or the sense of the note. What I com- 
plained of in Mr. B. was that he had given Dr. 
Clarke as a witness to prove immersion as the ex- 
elusive mode^ and that baptizo means to immerse^ and 
nothing else; and that, in attempting to make this 
to appear, he had cut one of the Doctor's sen- 
tences in two, by which a different sense was given 
to the note than the reader would have received in 
reading the whole of that part of the note that re- 
ferred to the subject of baptism. Mr. B. seems de- 
termined now^ to make amends for having given but 
part of a sentence in his Strictures. He says, ^I will 
here give the whole sentence^ &c.; he then proceeds, 
and quotes, not a w^hole sentence only, but five sen- 
tences. I suppose he thought he had as well give 
the reader the whole, as I had already given all 
that was material to the question. He says, on the 

the subject of dividing the sentence, and giving part 
25 



280 

of it as though it were the whole, "As to using \t 
period^ I could not close the sentence without it; 
and I hope you will not require a man to quote all 
that another writer says, in order to avoid mutu 
lating.^^ I do not expect a man who quotes a wri- 
ter to give all he says, but 1 do expect that he shall 
give enough truly to represent the views of the au- 
thor. But this gentleman could not close the sen- 
tence without a period. What he quoted was not a 
sentence, and, therefore, ought not to have been 
closed. Surely as_this gentleman is a teacher, he 
knows that a quotation can be finished as well with 
a colon, semicolon, or comma, as with a period, I 
ask now again, does Dr. Clarke's note prove that 
to immerse is the only sense of baptizof for this is the 
point that he was brought by Mr, B, to prove, Strictures, 
page 15. His words are, ''But this (baptizo) is an ob- 
stinate word- It has but one meaning — these learned 
men knew it — and their candor forced them to acknowledge 
it.^'^ I boldly affirm, that they never did acknow- 
ledge it. Dr. C's language with regard to this word, 
is Matt, iii, 6, — "Were the people dipped or 
sprinkled? for it is certain hapto and baptize 
mean both." 

Mr. B. may write as many explanations and mn- 



281 

dlcations as he pleases, but while his Strictures ex- 
ist, they will fully sustain all that I have said of him, 
on this case, in my 'Appeal,' to which I beg leave 
to refer the reader. 

As it regards what the gentleman says about 
^confessing my folly, and as Jdng forgiveness;^ and about his 
'being one of the first to forgive me, in the event of 
my asking forgiveness,' &;c., I would only observe, 
it is a feature of 'my creed,' that confession is a 
part of repentance^ and that conviction always pre- 
cedes it. Hence, for the want of conviction^ that I 
have done any wrong in the premises, I cannot re- 
pent or ask pardon. The conviction I have at present 
is, that Mr. B. deserved all he got in my first argu- 
ment, and that he is now desirous of getting out of 
the dilemma in the best way he can, under cover of 
the dust raised by him in his letters. I invite any 
candid man to take his Strictures and compare them 
with what 1 have said, for proof of the above. See 
Strictures, pages 13, 14, 15, — Appeal, from page 122 
to 130. 

He next attempts to clear himself from the charge 
with regard to Mr, Wesley, page 61, and begins by 
confessing that he "had in mistaJce, put Dr. Dod- 
dridge's words into Mr. Wesley's mouth in the 



282 

Strictures; but that in his Sermon he had given the *' 
quotation exact.'' I ask, does that prove the point 
he had undertaken to make out? He had asserted 
that Mr. Wesley 'preferred immersion,'^ — that 'he 
had acknowledged that baptizo had but one mean- 
ing.' Whereas, Mr. W. says, 'the greatest scholars^ 
and most proper judges in the matter, testify that ^ 
the original term (baptizo) means not dipping, but 
washing or cleansing.' I ask the candid reader, is 
this an acknowledgment? What I complained of 
was, that he should take part of a sentence from 
Mr. W's notes, and the circumstances of Parker's 
child, and Mary Welch, from his journal, to make 
out, that Mr. W. favored his views. And with 
Mr. W's works in his hands, containing positive evi- 
dence to the contrary^ he should still abuse the 
minds of his readers, with this partial testimony, 
concerning that good man's actual sentiments. 

Mr. B. did not quote Mr. Wesley on Coloss. ii, 12, 
he says, either in his printed Sermon, or whilst de- 
livering it, 'because he could see no meaning in it.' 
And he thought he had satisfied 'my friend' of it in 
the conversation they had after the sermon was 
preached. This gentleman thinks my 'friend' like 



283 

Goldsmith's schoolmaster, 'though convinced^ he can 
argue still.' Now, I undertake to say, that Mr. B. 
never did either convince or ^vanqidsK him. I sup- 
pose he did not like to quote Goldsmith correctly^ 
and say, 'though vanquished he can argue still,' lest 
those who know the circumstances of that con- 
versation, should think his boasting unauthorized 
by the true state of the case. 

Mr. B. says, page 63, that '/ seem to have found it ne- 
cessary to apologize for Mr, Wesley,'' I remark, when Mr. 
W. is not misrepresented he needs no apologist. And 
IhlushforMr, B. that he should make it necessary for me 
to become the vindicator^ not the 'apologist^^ of a 
man whose name is interwoven with that revival of 
the work of God which commenced in the last cen- 
tury; and whose fame shall be more imperishable 
than the foundations of empires. I 'apologise for 
Me. John Wesley?!! 'His works bear witness 
of him.' I only attempted to remove the dust that 
had been thrown upon his 'fair escutcheon/ 

While I am upon the subject of Mr. W's testi- 
mony, I would just observe to the reader, that Mr. 
B. seems to have suspected his readers would 'be 
surprised at his frequent references to Mr. ^.,' and sets 
about assigning the reason, viz: Hhat the large proportion 
25* 



284 

of the congregation, assembled to hear the sermon, were 
Methodists,^ Ser. p. 10. Now, admitting this state- 
ment to be true, what was to be gained by attempt- 
ing to prove to Methodists, that Mr, Wesley held 
one thing on the subject of baptism, and practised 
another? Was this the quintessence of politeness, 
to tell a congregation, Hhe large proportion of whom 
were Methodists,'^ that the founder of their sect was 
an inconsistent man, and that he held 'baptismal re- 
generation^ and entertained indeed, 'worse views on 
baptism than Mr. Alexander Campbell?' And this, 
too, from a gentleman who writes about 'common po- 
liteness?! T This T have written upon the supposi- 
tion that the statement is true. I now pronounce it 
to be utterly without foundation, unless this gentle- 
man has some mode of calculation, that I have never 
heard of, by which he can make it appear, that fif- 
teen or twenty Methodists, are Hhe large proportion 
of a congregation'^ of several hundred persons. Per- 
haps Mr. B. was misinformed about his auditors. I 
am willing to hope he was. At the same time, I 
am afraid he is venj liable to be imposed upon by 
those who may imagine Xliey ptlease him, or advan- 
tage their cause, by repeating silly tales, or things not 
founded in fart. Of this character is the silly 



285 

story of Mr. Toplady, page 80, about, 'Mr. Wes- 
ley^s having immersed a woman in a hogshead,'^ He 
knows, candid reader, that Mr. Toplady was one of 
Mr. Wesley's bitterest opponents^ and that he was 
quite as much exasperated at Mr, W, as Mr. B= 
has been at me. Even religious men, under such 
circumstances^ can sometimes consent to gratify one 
of the worst feelings of human nature, by retailing 
marvellous stories about an opponent^ if they can 
only get some one else to endorse them, whether 
they themselves believe them or not. Mr. Topla- 
dy thought that sin could not hurt the elect. Query, 
Is Mr. B. less partial now to this gentleman's views 
than formerly? 

His next attempt is to show, that he has not mis- 
represented Professor Stuart's views, and gravely 
says to me, 'If you examine his essay, "^ ^c. Does 
he suppose 1 have not examined it? He knows / 
have examined it, quite sufficiently to show the 
reader that Professor Stuart, so far from confirming 
Mr. Carson's view of baptizo, says expressly, page 
100, that 'Mr. Carson lays down some very adven- 
turous positions in respect to words having one mean- 
ing only] which as it seems to me, every lexicon on earth 
contradicts, and alivays must contradict.'^ And yet Mr. 



286 

B, persists in making the Professor a witness for 
immersion as the only sense of baptizo. And says, 
page 59, that he (Stuart) 'acknowledges, or rather 
affirms, that all lexicographers and critics, of any 
note, have assigned to it (haptizo) the same mean- 
ing that Carson does,' — while Carson, the reader 
will observe, confesses that ''all lexicographers 
and commentators are against him in that opinion.^'* 
Carson on Baptism, page 79, as quoted by Dr. Mil- 
ler. 

Here, according to Mr. B., Professor Stuart con- 
tradicts Mr. Carson: Stuart says, all lexicogra- 
phers^ of any note, agree with Carson in opinion; 
Carson says, all lexicographers are against him in 
opinion. Verily, here is a discrepancy! I beg 
leave to refer the intelligent reader to my former 
argument for Professor Stuart's views; and for a ful- 
ler account of them, to his Essay on the Mode of 
Baptism. 

In every case which I have examined, of the 
Pedobaptist authorities quoted by Mr. B., T have 
found the remark of Peter Edwards to hold good; 
i. e. 'that those writers are made to concede what 
they never meant to concede.'^ 
. On page 69, Mr. B. quotes Dr. Doddridge, 1 think 



287 

unfairly^ in the words following: "It seems the 
part of candor to confess, that here (Rom. vi, 4,) 
is an allusion to the manner of baptizing by immer- 
sion." This, the reader will observe, he makes a 
full sentence, putting a period in the place where 
the Doctor has a comma. But the gentleman says, 
'he cannot close a sentence without a period,^ One would 
think, he might know how to close part of a sen- 
tence without one. 

The Doctor's words are, "it seems the part of can- 
dor to confess, that here is an allusion to the man- 
ner of baptizing by immersion, as most usual in 
these early times; but that will not prove this particular 
circumstance to he essential to the ordinance." — 
The reader can compare these quotations, and see 
whether they give the same idea of the Doctor's 
views. 

When 1 deem it expedient, and have nothing more 
important to engage my attention, I may perhaps be 
at the pains to examine some others of Mr. B's 
abused critics. I have no doubt they have all been 
treated pretty much alike. 

On page 65, 66, Mr. B. introduces again the sub- 
ject of 'baptismal regeneration,' and has made a piti- 
ful attempt to show his readers that Mr. Wesley 



288 

built infant baptism upon that doctrine. Hear hiin, 
^'Any man of candor and common sense must see that 
Mr. Wesley held it, and built infant baptism upon it.^^ 
And he adds, "anc? besides this foundation, none other 
can be laid upon which the baptism of infants can stand J^ 
Does not the reader see in this an attempt to narrow 
down the evidence for infant baptism to this single point? 
He says, / have charged Mr. Wesley, both from the pulpit 
and the press, with advocating the doctrine of baptismal re- 
generation. Mark that! Is not this a mere blind? 
Have ten intelligent men ever dreamed of it, in read- 
ing Mr. W's treatise of baptism? To take isolated 
passages from the writings of a man, wresting them 
from their proper connection, is not a fair way of 
coming at his true sentiments, on any given point. 
And indeed, after Mr. B. has adduced his testimony, 
what does it prove? That we are regenerated by 
baptism? Not at all. By what then? By grace. 
Here are the words, ''By baptism we, who were, by 
nature, children of wrath, are made the children of 
God. And this regeneration, which our church, in so 
many places ascribes to baptism, is more than bare- 
ly being admitted into the church, though commonly 
connected therewith, being grafted into the body of 
Christ's chinch, we are made the children of God by adop- 



I 



(I 



5S5 

tion and grace.'' He then adds, This is grounded 
on the plain words of our Lord, 'Except a man be 
born of water and of the Spirit,'^ &c., and quotes 
the words of the apostle, where he calls baptism 
^the washing of regeneration.' He then adds, 'nor 
does she (the church) ascribe it to the outtvard ivash- 
ing, but to the inward grace,"^ <fec. Query, Has 
Mr. Broaddus any method by which people can be 
regenerated, and made children of God, other than 
'by inward grace.' Mr. W., in his sermon on the 
'New Birth,' after quoting the questions and answers 
in the Church Catechism, says, 'nothing therefore is 
plainer, than that, according to the Church of Eng- 
land, BAPTISM IS NOT THE NEW BiKTH.' I refer the 
reader to his 'Sermons,' and 'Treatise at\ Baptism,' 
for further evidence, that Mr. B. in charging Mr. Wesley ^ 
from the pulpit and the press, with holding baptismal 
regeneration, has charged him foolishly. I would advise 
him, in future, to pay more regard to the 9th com- 
mandment, Ex. XX, 16, especially when men have 
gone up to heaven, and cannot answer for them* 
selves. 

I might accuse the apostle Peter, in the very 
same way, with holding that we are 'saved by bap- 
tism;'^ for he says, 'The like figure whereunto, even 



« 



290 

baptism doth also now save usJ^ But the apostle ex- 
plains himself, and so does Mr. Wesley. If the | 
candid reader will examine Mr. W's Treatise on 
Baptism, he will see that he rests infant baptism, not 
on baptismal regeneration, (as Mr. B. says he does,) 
but upon sound reason, and scripture evidence. If I 
could find a dead giant, how I could brandish my 
sword over him without fear!!! "I have charged Mr. 
Wesley from the pulpit and the press,^^ Who is this 
*GiANT WARRIOR?' that 'alms his hlows^ at the high and 
the low, and striding along, recklessly treads alike upon 
the feelings of the living, and the ashes of the ^mighty 
deaden 

But Mr. B. says, the public want light on the 
subject of Methodist views of baptism. Does he 
mean the community at large? or does he mean the 
Baptist public? Some of them at least, had better 
use the light they already have, before they 'call 
for more' with regard to our views. Some of them 
have refused to read the 'Appeal' when it was offer- 
ed them gratuitously. It would surely be of no 
avail to such, however plainly and fully I might 
answer on this subject. 

I am not aware that, our people, or the 'ruling 
powers' (as this gentleman calls the ministry,) hold 



291 

the doctrine of 'baptismal regeneration' either in the 
case of infants or adults. The views of the Meth- 
odists, as a denomination, have been long before the 
world; for we have a published creed. If Mr. B's 
"public" want light, with regard to our views, I beg 
leave to refer them to our x\rticles of Religion in 
our Discipline, and to the ' Wesleyan Methodist Cate- 
chism,' Nos. 1, 2, 3, published at the Book-room, 
New York. 

He makes an attempt, p. 71, to explain away the 
view I gave of the baptism of the Israelites in the 
Red sea, and will have it, that if water from the 
cloud, and the sea come on them, they were bap- 
tized twice. This was a baptism of men^ women^ 
and children, and for a full answer to Mr. B. rela- 
tive to the mode of its administration, I refer the 
candid reader to my former argument on this point. 
He is so much pleased with his fancy, that Mr. 
Wesley and 1 disagree in our views of the condi- 
tion of infants, that, on p. 72, he brings it forward 
again. I deem it unnecessary to add any thing to 
what I have said on that subject, in the former part 
of this argument. 

In reply to Mr. B's remarks on the Greek prepo- 
sitions, p. 73, I have but a single observation or two 
26 



292 

to make. My criticism on the preposition has been 
pronounced 'perfectly correct,'^ by a gentleman criti- 
cally acquainted with the Greek language, and who 
is less interested in this controversy than either Mr. 
B. or myself, and therefore, more entitled to credit. 
For we have seen, in the case of Dr. Carson, how 
the support of 'a theory' can induce a man to con- 
tradict "all lexicographers and commentators." The 
Baptists hold that we are to be baptized in imitation of 
Christ; of course, then, if we find any difficulty in un- 
derstanding the meaning of the prepositions, in any 
case of baptism, subsequent to his, it will be fair to 
refer to the pattern given in the case of his baptism, 
for a solution of the difficulty. Well then, where 
the baptism of Christ is spoken of, the term Apo, 
is used, the primary meaning of which, according 
to Parkhurst's lexicon, is from, away from, 

*And straightway coming up (Apo) out of the wa- 
ter,' Mark i, 10. Now, as Mr. B. will contend for 
the primary meaning of prepositions, let him take 
the primary meaning of Apo, and the evidence for 
immersion, drawn from the baptism of Christ, van- 
ishes. Instead of his emerging from beneath the 
water, it will appear, that he only came up from 
the river, which he might do, without having wet 



( 



293 

so much as the sole of his foot. If the apostles fol- 
lowed the 'pattern showed' them in the 'Master's' 
case, toe must interpret the prepositions used m the cases 
recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, according to the pri- 
mary meaning q/* Apo; i.e. from — away from. Thus 
the reader will perceive, that, the evidence which 
the Baptists attempt to draw from the preposition, 
in favor of immersion, is only a fancy of their's to 
aid in the support of 'a theory.' 

Mr. B. says, p, 73, that he "finds in controversy 
with some men, he must sometimes consent to do a 
small business, or else have no business at all." / 
did not invite any controversy with this gentleman 
in particular. If he thought me a puny antagonist^ 
prepared only to wage a 'small war,' unworthy his 
giant strength, why did he invite me into the field of 
controversy? Was he ambitious to engage in a 
^small business?'* to vanquish a mere pigmy oppo- 
nent? The candid reader knows, that men of true 
courage never seek to impose on the weak, and to 
run down those, who are only capable of doing a 
'small business.' Moreover, what I said of the pre- 
positions, was only in answer to his use of them. 
So that, if this business is small, he has the credit 
of having commenced it. 



294 

He asks on the same page, "Mr. S. who told you 
that Saul of Tarsus and the family of Cornelius were 
baptized in a house?" I answer, the words of St. 
Luke set forth, that, they ivere in the house when the 
preaching took place, and do not say that they went 
out of the house to receive baptism. If Mr. B, will 
say that they did go out^ for the purpose of receiving 
baptism, then it is not with me, but with himself to fur- 
nish the proof of it. In Acts ix, 17, 18, 19, vs. 
we have the case of Saul, "and Ananias entered into 
the house; and putting his hands on him, (fee. — and he 
received sight forthwith, and arose, and was bap- 
tized. And when he had received meat, he was 
strengthened.'' Now I say, he received baptism in the 
house. And if this gentleman has any evidence, that 
he received it out of doors, it would be more becom* 
ing in him to present his evidence, instead of asking 
such questions. One would think that the Baptists, of 
all others, ought to be found in possession of a creed, or 
catechism^ for they seem, of all people, most prone to 
get information by asking questions. They remind 
me in this respect, of the Pharisees and Sadducees of 
our Lord's time, who did little else in their conver- 
sations with Christ, and his disciples, than ask ques- 
tions* The intelligent reader will observe in read- 



295 

ing the gospels they rarely advanced any thing them- 
selves, or affirmed any thing; hut put themselves in their 
trenches; and said, ''why do thy disciples so and so? Doth 
your master pay tributcT^ ''Tell us is it lawful to pay trib- 
ute to Ccesarf^ ^'Master ivhose wife shall she be in the 
resurrection; for the seventh had herf^ fyc. Our Lord 
said to such 'ye do err, not knowing the scriptures! P It is 
only those who hold systems of error that have need to 
support them by perpetually asking silly questions 
of an opponent, as though they had a right to become 
catechists for all the world. 

On page 74, Mr. B. again, the third time, intro- 
duces the case of Mr. G. of Culpepper, who he 
says %aptized by immersion 75 persons, in 25 minutes, as 
can easily be proved: this was three to a minute; and 
I am sure I have never seen three sprinkled in one 
minute, in my life; neither hav-e 1 ever heard of it." 
After Mr. B. had given the public this Culpepper 
case in his Strictures and Sermon, I did hope, for 
the credit of religion he would say no more about it. 
Here is the absurd spectacle presented of a minister of God 
administering one of the solemn sacraments of the Gospel, 
against time, and "several gentlemen of undoubted ve- 
racity, holding their watches in their hands, and de- 
claring this to be the result." This seems to be a 

favorite case with our Baptist friends, Elder G. as 
26* 



296 

well as Mr. B. has taken occasion to make use of it. 
It seems truly, to have been an experiment made in the 
county of Culpepper for the benefit of the Baptist 
cause throughout the world, in order to show that 
Peter and his companions, on the day of Pentecost, 
could have dipped the three thousand in the short 
time allowed for the administration of the ordi- 
nance. Before this case can be made to prove any 
thing in favor of their cause, it must be shown, that 
the apostles of our Lord would hurry, as Mr. G. did, 
in giving the ordinance. But why need those elders 
go all the way to Culpepper, to look up this case of 
baptism, in order to tell the world, how long it re- 
quires to give the ordinance by immersion? Have 
they never administered it to a sufficient number at 
once, to enable them, to form an opinion about the 
length of time required? I suppose they have never 
made an experiment. Mr. B. ^never heard of three he- 
ing sprinkled in one minuteV and we hope he never will; 
for Pedobaptist ministers do not perform the ordinances of 
God against time. So much for his Culpepper case. 
He thinks, the fact,jthat Pedobaptists attempt to prove 
that John's was not Christian baptism, is sufficient 
evidence that they considered John gave the ordinance 
'by immersion;' I have only to say, this argument 
proves nothing, because all the views which we take 



297 

of the nature of John's baptism are sustained by 
Robt. Hall in his argument for open communion, and 
I suppose HE will not be suspected of being influen- 
ced by Pedobaptist motives, in this case. 

On page 75, after giving a caricature of the prac- 
tice of Pedobaptists in administering the ordinance, 
he proceeds to notice the argument for pouring in 
baptism, drawn from the necessity of a resemblance 
between the sign and the thing signified. He attempts 
to make out, that the effects of the Spirit, and not 
the manner of its communication are to be represent- 
ed by baptism. This is a new discovery of the gen- 
tleman's, by which he hopes to evade the argument. 
He was quite contented to suppose before, that the 
Spirit was poured out, until the place was filled^ and they 
were thereby immersed. But after my exploding 
that fancy in my former argument, he has of course 
to look out for some other imagination or invention to 
help the cause. Now he says, 'my dear sir, I hope 
you will give up this fancy; and be contented to 
have the effects of the Spirit's influences represented by 
baptism;' and asks 'if the effectsave so partial^^s to he 
better represented by pouring or sprinkling, than by 
immersion?' I answer the effects of the extraordinary in- 
fluence of the spirit, are more truly represented by sprink- 
lings than by immersion^ and the proof is easy. Al- 



298 

though we hear some talk of the fulness^ the pleni- 
tude of spiritual gifts', yet what says the apostle Paul, 
to the Corinthian Church? although they had all 
been baptized with the Spirit, each individual in- 
stead of h3.\ing 3, fulness of spiritual gifts, possessed 
only one; "For to one is given, by the Spirit the 
word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge; 
to another faith; to another the gifts of healing; to 
another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; 
to another discerning of spirits; to another divers 
kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of 
tongues; but all these worketh that one and the self- 
same spirit, DIVIDING to every man severally as he 
will." See 1 Cor. xii, 8 — ^11. Now a small por- 
tion of water would be quite sufficient to represent 
a single spiritual gift. 

He says, page 76, "the baptism of the spirit was 
only 3, figurative baptism. I hope you will not sup- 
pose that the spirit was literally poured out from 
heaven! That influence by which the disciples were 
enabled to speak with tongues, was altogether an in- 
fluence of jnind upon mind. How then, can any ma- 
terial element, ever represent the manner of it." / 
do suppose that the spirit was poured out; and that for the 
best possible reason, (viz.J the word of God says it was, 
'And I hope never to ^figure* away the plain com- 



299 

mon sense meaning of the book of God. If I could not 
support my cause without that, I would abandon it 
forever. We do not pretend to explain the manner 
in which mind, (as he has it,) acts upon mind. We 
only imphcitly believe what the Holy Ghost declares, 
(i. e.) ''on the Gentiles also, (as well as the Jews,) was 
POURED OUT the gift of THE HOLY GHOST." And as 
it is said "It fell on all them, which heard the 
word," we suppose that, Ht was poured out from heavenl? 

I trust never to be so 'given over to strong delu- 
sion' as to contradict the plain dictates of 'common 
sense' as well as the word of divine Revelation, in 
order to support a favorite theory. Mr. B. in pro- 
pagating this new fancy, has adopted a mode of ex- 
pression altogether ybreiofTi from theological usage; 
he calls the spirit of God, "mind;" "an influence of 
mind upon mind,^^ 

This same matter of the touring out of the holy 
Ghost, on the day of Pentecost, is exceedinoly per- 
plexing to this gentleman. On page 77, he advances 
an entirely new view of the matter. He has discov- 
ered now that there were none of the disciples pres- 
ent, when the Holy Ghost was poured out, except the 
twelve apostles. He says, "i/ow spake as if the 120 
where in the room when the baptism of the Spirit occurred* 



300 

/ deny it. Read the last verse of the first chapter, 
and the first verse of the secondj and you will see 
that none but the twelve are mentioned as being to- 
gether." Now candid reader, I have read the pas- 
sage, perhaps as often as this gentleman, and cannot 
see any such things and how should / see it, when 
Mr. A. Campbell could not discover that there were 
only THE TWELVE present. On the contrary he saw 
120 present. In his debate, page 376, in attempting 
to give an express warrant for female communion, 
he says, "the number of the whole was about 120, 
chap, ii, 1. On the day of Pentecost, they (the 120) 
were all with one accord in one place,^^ How 
strange, that, two Baptist elders, should differ so 
much in opinion, about a plain matter of f act ^ and each 
refer their readers to the same passage for his proof! 
The reader must take notice, that they were both 
but trying to evade a different Pedobaptist argument. 
The intelligent reader however, will conclude that the 
word of God is not like a heathen oracle, that will 
give out one answer at one time, and a contrary one 
at another, just to suit the whims of diflferent priests. 
The passage says there were 120, when Mr. C. wants 
an express warrant for female communion: But when 
Mr. B. wants to evade the difficulty I had presented 



301 

in the way of his theory, then the passage says there 
were but 12 present! ! This gentleman, however, 
not only contradicts Mr. Campbell and me, but he 
contradicts himself also, as the reader can easily dis- 
cover, by looking at his Ser. page 35. Where he 
says, 'Hhe 70 no doubt were presenV'^ at the baptizing. 
It is a great pity that a man who attem])ts to sup- 
port error, should have a bad memory, and should 
thus be exposed to the danger of unsaying at one 
time what he has said at another!!! Perhaps he will 
say, only the twelve were present at the pouring out 
of the Spirit, and that the seventy came afterwards, 
to help with, or witness the baptizing. If he should 
take this course, the reader can consult the first chap- 
ter of Acts, from the 15th verse to the end, and there 
he will discover, without the aid of any commentator, 

that ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY DISCIPLES WERE 

present on the occasion. The candid reader can 
judge, how much credit a system is entitled to, that 
requires such twisting and turning, and prevarica- 
tion on the part of its advocates, in order to support 
it. 

Mr. B. says, that "the influences of the Spirit, by 
which men are brought to repent and turn to God, 
are no where in the bible called baptism. I can 



302 

never believe a man baptized with the Holy Ghost, 
in the scripture sease of that expression, unless he 
confirms his pretensions by speaking in all manner 
of tongues." Then it will follow, that when John 
the Baptist said, "I baptize you with water, he shall 
baptize you with fire and the Holy Ghost,^^ he wish- 
ed the multitude to understand they should receive 
the extraordinary influences of the Spirit, and have 
power to 'speak all manner of tongues;^ for Mr. B. 
will not admit that they received this baptism, unless 
this sign followed. Did ever any man, in his sober 
senses, suppose, that John meant the miraculous poto^ 
ers of the Holy Ghost? 'I speak as unto wise 
men.' 

On page 77, he says, "TVie scriptures no where speak 
of baptism as a representation of the Spirifs influences. 
It is a representation of the burial and insurrection of 
Jesus,^^ And referring to Rom. vi, 4; and Col. ii, 
12, he says, 'St. Paul understood it so.' Then John 
the Baptist should have said to the multitude. 
He shall be buried and arise from the dead, therefore, 
I am come baptizing with water. Let the reader 
consult John i, 28 to 34, and he will discover that 
the Baptist gives a diflTerent view of this matter, from 
that given above by Mr. B. He declares, that, he 
came baptizing with water, because the Son of God 



303 

would give a baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, 
Christ himself gives the same view, Acts i, 5, ^'John 
baptized loith water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy 
Ghost.^^ In Acts xi, 15, 16, Peter gives the same 
view, 'And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost 
FELL ON THEM, as on US at the beginning. Then 
remembered I the word of the Lord, John indeed 
baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy 
Ghost.^^ The reader can now judge who is most 
to be credited in this case, Mr. B. or the authorities 
I have quoted. Added to all this, if baptism re* 
presented the burial and resurrection of Christ, how did 
it happen that, the disciples, after witnessing andj^cr- 
forming thousands of baptisms, were profoundly ig- 
norant of the thing represented? For, up to the eve 
of Christ's crucifixion, yea, even after he had been 
crucified, they did not understand that he was to arise 
from the dead. See Mark ix, 10; and John xx, 9, 
'They questioned one with another what the rising from 
the dead should mean. For as yet they knew not the 
scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.^ But 
Mr. B. will have it, that, it was represented to themy 
in every one of the thousands of cases of baptism, 
which they witnessed. Is it possible, he can so pre- 
sume upon the credulity of his readers, as to sup- 
pose, that, one in a thousand can be made to believe 
27 



304 

in this fancy ^— this far-fetched conceit, that baptism 
represented, not the pouring out of the Holy Ghost, but 
Hhe burial and resurrection of JesusV And that, after the 
disciples had seen it represented, for more than three 
years, yet when Christ spoke to them of his rising 
from the dead, they knew nothing at all about it? 
They had never heard of this 'figment,' that tells of 
the ^liquid grave,'' and the 'watery tomh,'^ as it is 
quite a modern invention. 

The sign must agree with the thing signified, — the sign 
was water baptism, the thing signified the baptism of, the 
Spirit: God gave the latter 6?/ 'pouring out,' 'shedding 
FORTH,' &c., therefore, the sign was given by pouring 
the water upon the subject!! '/ baptize you with 
water; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.' 

For my view of the baptism of the three thous- 
and on the day of Pentecost, I beg leave to refer 
the reader to the former argument. / say again, 
as I said at first, there is a total absence of all evi- 
dence that they received the rite by immersion, Mr. 
B's remarks about my conceding any thing on that 
point, are perfectly gratuitous; for, although I ad- 
mitted that there was water enough in Jerusalem, 
yet I said, the public and private bathing places were 
in the keeping of Christ's enemies; so that Mr. B's 
thanks for my liberality, are entirely out of place. 



305 

On page 79, he introduces the case of the jailor, 
and makes a very pathetic exclamation indeed, — 
'O Mr. S. when shall I be delivered from the morti- 
fication,' &c. He says, 'I could wish, for the sake 
of the profession to which you belong, that this were 
a solitary case.' I cannot help this gentleman's mor- 
tification. If he will persist in attempts to abuse 
the minds of his readers, I shall feel it my duty to 
hold up his conduct in its proper colors, that it may 
meet its merited reprobation. He says, 'I quoted 
the very language of the scriptures,' &c. So he 
did. But he did not quote enough of the language 
to give the true view of the case. Nor has he now 
quoted enough. In the Sermon he quoted from the 
29th verse — in the Letters from the 25th verse. If 
he had commenced at the 23d verse, as I have 
shown in the 'Appeal,' the reader would have been 
saved the danger of being imposed upon by his capi- 
tals in his Sermon, and the italics in his Letters. 
He proposes to let St. Luke's words inform the read- 
er in the premises, and says, "This is Luke's account 
of the matter, without even the addition of capital 
letters, and it seems to me to require no little inge- 
nuity to find in all this any thing inconsistent with 
the idea of immersion. Let us see — the jailor first 



306 

brought them out.^^ Now, why did not the gentle- 
man accord a little common sense to his readers, and 
leave them to judge from Luke^s account, without 
the aid of his italics, instead of going on to repeat 
certain of Luke's words, putting them in italics? 
This trickery, I wotild fain hope, is too manifest, to 
impose on any, who have not sold themselves to 
blind devotion to a party. 

I say, in conclusion, that his version of this matter, 
makes Paul and Silas a couple of arch hypocrites; 
for it represents that they left the prison at midnight, and 
went off to the 'river Strymon,' or some other 
stream; and yet, when the next morning arrived, and 
the magistrates sent two 'Serjeants, saying, let these 
men go,' they refused to leave the jail, stating that 
Hhey would not be thrust out privately;' and added^ 
^Let the magistrates come themselves and fetch us out? 
And 'the magistrates came and besought them, and 
brought them out,' &c. And these are the men 
who left the prison at midnight privately, of their 
own accord, who now that it is day, need to be en- 
treated to leave it, before they will consent to go 
out!!! This truly, was rather a bad lesson to teach 
their new converts! But, candid reader, Paul and 
Silas were not the men to practice duplicity. There^ 



307 

jfbre, I say they never left the premises of the Philip- 
pian jail, until the morning, and the baptizing took 
place within doors and not at the 'river Strymon.' I 

refer the reader to my former argument on this case 

* 

for a full answer to Mr. B. 

He begins his nineteenth letter by saying, "how 
determined must that man be, 'to support a theory,' 
who can undertake, by mere 'sifting' to set aside 
the plain testimony for immersion, which is furnish- 
ed in the eunuch's case,'' (kc I always consider, 
that ^sifting'^ in controversy, is better than 'shift- 
ing.' That this gentleman has dealt largely in the 
latter, I presume the reader has discovered during 
this examination. "What is the chaff to the wheat, 
saith the Lord,'' and how is the wheat of truth to be 
separated from the chaff of error, without 'sifting?^ 
As it regards his strong or plain testimony for im- 
mersion in the case of the eunuch's baptism, they re- 
main to be shown. My former argument on this 
case he has not met, as the reader can see by com- 
paring the 'Appeal,' pages 68, 69, 70, with his Let- 
ters, pages 81, 82, 83. 

On page 86, Mr. B. gives us quite a short method 

for disposing of the matter in controversy, he says, 

"Now, sir, I will tell you what our ^favorite argu- 
27* 



308 

ment' is, — it is this, the word of our ifm^, through- 
out, is in favor of immersion. This is my ^favor- 
ite argument.' 1 find immersion in the ^pattern; and 
I find nothing else there." This is begging the 
question, with a witness. Does the reader see any 
argument in his 'favorite argument^ 

Why did he not attempt to answer my remarks 
upon the 'supposed immersion'^ of Christ? Also, my 
exposition of Rom. vi, 4; and Col. ii, 12? The view 
I took of their argument for immersion, drawn from 
antiquity, where the rite was performed, (accord- 
ing to the Baptist historian Robinson,) upon naked 
subjects, both male and female, he passes over 
lightly, as though he wished to keep it from the 
view of his readers. 

Being hard pressed by the case which I gave from 
Benedict's history of the Baptists, where Roger 
Williams received baptism by immersion, from the 
hands of a layman, who never had been dipped himself 
Mr. B. on page 88, has made a concession, that, 
upon reflection, seems to have alarmed the gentle- 
man himself, judging from what he wrote imme- 
diately after. Here it is: "I GRANT, SIR, THAT, 
IF A MAN HAS NOT BEEN IMMERSED, HE 
MAY IMMERSE OTHERS, and his neglect of 



309 

HIS OWN DUTY, MAY NOT DISQUALIFY HIM FOR AS- 
SISTING OTHERS IN THE DISCHARGE OP THEIr's." 
Now, LET IT BE KNOWN TO ALL WHOM IT MAY CON- 
CERN, THAT, Elder Broaddus being judge, all 
Pedobaptist ministers are qualified to give 
the ordinance by immersion!!! 

So that, if you prefer the Methodists, Presbyte- 
rians, Episcopalians, or any others, to the Baptists^ 
you may receive valid baptism, by immersion, at 
their hands!! But he was evidently alarmed at his 
own admission, as I shall show the reader. He 
says, on the same page, "But 1 have always thought 
it singular, that those who ridicule immersion, &c. 
should, after all, consent to immerse those who can- 
not be convinced that sprinkling or pouring is 'the 
more excellent way.' And asks me — "How then 
CAN YOU consent TO IMMERSE?" "How Can you 
encourage people in their superstition?'^'' He then 
adds — "On the last page of your 'Appeal,' you call 
immersion 'the child of superstition.' " This is not 
as it is there written. I called it no such thing. 
Why has he wrested my words from their proper 
connection in this case? He knew that I was speak- 
ing of baptism, performed upon naked subjects. But 
he must make the impression, that I considered im- 



310 

mersion, superstitious; and then adds— "Surely, 
hereafter, you will not be found willing to 
immerse; or if you should, can any consent 
that you should immerse them, while they 
know that you consider it a violation of the 
WORD OF God? I TROW NOT." I said, candid 
reader, above, that the gentleman was alarmed at 
at his own concession. He admits that lam quali- 
fied^ but hopes nobody will consent, that / shall im- 
merse them. But who told Mr. B. that / consider 
immersion a violation of the ivord of God? Where is it 
written? He says — 'While they know* I so consider it. 
Why did he not give the proof, of this allegation? For 
the best of all reasons, he could not!! We prefer sprink- 
ling or pouring, in baptism; but we would rather im- 
merse persons who cannot be convinced of the validity 
of baptism, after these methods, than they should go 
where there is 'no confession of faith,' and where 
scarcely any two, even of the ministers, agree in opinion. 
We think 'unity of faith,'* and *the bond of peace' more 
important, to a religious denomination, than the particu- 
lar form of an outward ceremony!! * Judge ye wl^at I 
say.' 

I have now reached Mr. B's last letter, in which 
there are some things I intend briefly to notice. I 
have observed that he seems to be very much con- 



311 

kerned about the existence of different denomina- 
tions of Christians. And says — "/ think I am ready to do 
uny thing I can safely do, to bring the scattered flock of 
Vhiist together.''^ And very gravely asks — "Will you 
do the same? Allow me to hope that you will." 
Perhaps the reader is ready to ask, what does Mr. 
B. wish you to give up for the sake of union? Why, 
gentle reader, he only modestly asks, that we give 
up infant baptism^ and that we cease to baptize adults by 
pouring or sprinkling, and adopt immersion* Or in other 
words, that we shall all become Baptists. Well; 
what does he propase to do for union? Just nothing 
at all, but be a Baptist still; for he does not even al- 
lude to any concession to be made on his pari. A 
kind and liberal soul truly!! He makes a proposi- 
tion which contains really nullification and consoli- 
dation, in order to union. He would nullify both 
infant baptism, and baptism by pouring; and then 
consolidate the whole Pedobaptist world into one 
great Baptist church, in order, as he says, 'to bring 
the scattered flock of Christ together!!' 

It would be thought, from what he has said, that 
those who reject infant baptism, and give the ordi- 
nance by immersion, are a very united people. For this, 
the reader perceives is Mr. B^s prescription for union. 
And so they are united, in two things, at least; first, to op- 



312 

pose infant baptism; and second, to contend for immersion^ 
as the exclusive mode. Beyond this, they have few senti- 
ments in common. The history of the church will show 
that among those who have rejected the baptism of in- 
fants, there has been found error of all dimensions:— 
from old Tertullian, who held it to be improper to bap- 
tize unmarried people, down to Peter De Bruis, who 
held that infants could not be saved, and therefore ought 
not to be baptized; — from the German Anabaptists 
who held polygamy, and ran through the streets with 
a bible in one hand, and a sword in the other, cry- 
ing, 'repent and be baptized,' to the thousands of 
Europe and America, who, in more modern times, 

HAVE DENIED THE DIVINITY OF ChRIST, and held 

the error of Pelagius, &;c, &c. This gentleman 
will find it necessary to look out for some other mode 
of "uniting the flock." 

We go against all pretended '^unionsj^ and think 
genuine Christian concord, may be maintained, 
without consolidation. Let our Baptist brethren, 
become more liberal towards other sects, and more 
united among themselves, and we shall have a better 
union of heart and sentiment, than can be brought 
about by any such consolidation of discordant ma- 
terials, as is proposed by the plan of Mr. B. I 



313 

would beg leave to suggest, that, this gentleman 
would do well, to give the world an example of the 
uniting effect of their views of baptism, among them- 
selves, before he concerns himself about trying his 
plan upon the Pedobaptist community. True charity 
always begins at home!!! He alleges ''That a very 
great number of our people do not have their infant off- 
spring baptized,^^ and infers therefrom, "that it is 
not deemed a matter of great importance.'' 'A very 
great number of your people,' Mark that! Where 
do they live? I do not know them. Now if he has 
stated the truth about the Methodists, it becomes 
them to see to it. And if they do 'have their in- 
fant offspring baptized; they will recollect that this 
gentleman has misrepresented them publicly, in say- 
ing, that 'a very great number of them' neglect 
this duty. 

On page 88, Mr. B. says that "/ consider immersion 
a violation of the word of Godf^ and on page 89, 
says, that, "J profess to have no objection to immersion,'^^ 
Now what confidence, candid reader, can the public 
have in a controversialist, who will thus, to carry 
his point, blow hot and cold, almost in the same 
breath? 

When be becomes alarmed, lest some 'should con- 



314 

sent^ that / should dip them, he says, "while thei^ 
know that you consider it a violation of the 
WORD OF God.'' But when he wishes to bring 
about his union of 'all sincere believers in one com- 
munion,^ he says, "You profess to have no objection 
to immersion — You believe it Scriptural bap- 
tism." Does the intelligent reader suppose, that, 
the gentleman will be found ingenious enough to re- 
concile these conflicting statements? And yet he 
says to me, on the very next page, ^'lam not aware of mis- 
representing your views in any instance whatever. If 1 
could know that any observation, in all these letters, sets 
your views in an improper light, I would sooner sup- 
press the whole that I have written, than to publish that 
observation,^^ 

In conclusion I remark, I have observed through- 
out his twenty-one 'letters,' a continual disposition 
manifested to make professions. He commenced by 
professing to have no object in view, 'but to main- 
tain the purity of our Lord's institutions,' page 4, — 
and concludes with the profession which I have 
given in italics above. Did he expect to impose 
upon his readers, by confessing his convictions 
about the ordinance; and professing his innocency in the 
matter of misrepresentation? &;c. This plan may 



315 

succeed with such as have committed their un- 
derstanding and judgment to the keeping of a priest, 
contented that he shall think, and reason, and judge 
for them. But I flatter myself, that amidst the light 
of the nineteenth century, the intelligent and candid 
of all denominations, will need something more than so- 
phistry for argument, or assumption for proof, upon so 
solemn a subject as the true nature of a Christian 
sacrament!! 

This gentleman has, more than once in his Letters, 
intimated a hope that he might convince me of the correct- 
ness of his views, inviting me to examine the scriptures 
and his arguments; as though he wished his read- 
ers to suppose I had never examined the subject; 
and that by being catechised as a school boy, I 
might be led to adopt his views of baptism. This 
is one of the stratagems by which he seeks to con- 
vince, not me, but others. I wish the reader to un- 
derstand, that, for the last fifteen years, more or 
less, I have been engaged in examining and 'sift- 
ing^' by the scriptures, the subject of water baptism 
and have been led to adopt the conclusions stated in 
the course of this and the former argument. These 
views I commend to the candid and careful exami- 
nation of the intelligent reader, in the fear of 
28 



316 

God, and in view of the righteous retribu- 
tions OF THE LAST DAY. "I speak as unto wise 
M'E'N, judge ye what I say.'' 



INDEX. 



page 
Preface to the first edition, ..... 3 

Preface to the second edition, 11 

Baptism, 17 

Obligations and perpetuity of Christian Baptism, . 18 

Christian Baptism confounded with the Baptism of 

John, 19 

Subjects of Baptism, 23 

Visible Church of Christ before his coming, . . 24 

Abrogation of Circumcision, 32 

Baptism in the place of Circumcision, ... 33 
God's two covenants with Abraham, . . . .35 
Testimony of Zacharias in the covenant contrasted with 

Mr. B's statements, . . . , , .36 
Gentiles derived spiritual privileges from circumcision. 38 
Profit of circumcision, by Apostle Paul, . . .39 
According to Mr. B., Abraham was the father of none 

but believers, 40 

Facts plainly and flatlj'' contradict this, . . . 41 

Infants recognized as members of the family churchy 42 
The Divine authority which gave the right has never 

cancelled it, 44 

Illustration or tv/o from common law, and new consti- 
tution of Virginia, 45, 46 

Sneers and ridicule, made to take the place of argument, 

are specimens by Mr. B 47 

Proselyte Baptism, 48 

Baptism in existence before John the Baptist. Opinion 

from Maimonides, 49 

Baptism of Pj-oselytes, was a baptism of families^ em- 
bracing children; — Dr, Lighffoot, ... 50 
The objection that infants are not capable of believing, 
and therefore ought not to be baptized, lies equally 
against their salvation, . . . . .51 



318 

page 
Mr. B's illustration, from Recruiting Infants, very un- 
fortunate, • . . 53 

Men's views of the meaning of terms, influenced by 

early impressions, 54 

Men's prejudices very inveterate when they grow up 

under an exclusive system, ..... 55 
Mr. B's views, subversive of that order and subordina- 
tion, which is necessary to the well being of so- 
ciety, 56 

Commission was put into the hands of Jews who never 

knew a church that rejected infants, ... 57 
Objection taken from the necessity to admit them alike 

^ to the Lord's supper, not valid, . . . .58 
Opinions of Calvin, Josephus, Poole, Stackhouse, and 

Doddridge, 59 

Opinion of Dr. Gill, a Baptist writer, . . . .60 
How the apostles understood their commission, . 61 
Mr. B's 'four households^' destitute of any infants, . 62 
In every case of families being baptized, as mentioned 
in the Acts and Epistles, as far as the evidence goes, 
is in favor of the baptism of parents and children, 63 

1st. Case of Lydia, ib. 

Her '^journeymen dyers" and dying establishment no- 
ticed, 64 

Oikos, used in this passage, when spoken of persons, 
denotes a family of children, and includes those of 

all ages, 65 

Opinions of the editor of Calmet, on oikos and oikia, . ib. 
Further opinions on this case of family baptism, . 67 
Faith in children not a necessary qualification, . . 68 
Household of Stephanus and the Philippian jailor, . 70 
One thing is certain, the jailor and his family were not 
baptized according to the practice of modern Bap- 
tists, 72 

Our Lord's evidence for infant baptism, as taken from 

Mark x, 13 to 16, &c 73 

Continued observations on these passages, . . .74 

Infants the model for adults, 77 

Children to be brought in the discipline of the Lord, 78 

Evidence from 1 Cor. vii, 14, 80 

Mr. Dagg's Exposition, 83 

Reply to Mr. B's question, "was baptism designed for 
the benefit of holy beings?" 85 



319 

page 
The antiquity of infant baptism strong evidence, . 86 
Mr. B. says it was introduced by the "Romish apos- 

tacy" — Reply, 87 

Sentiment of the Baptist writer. Dr. Gall, . . 90 
Testimony of Justin Martyr and Ireneus, to show that 

it was the practice of the primitive church, . . 91 
Testimony of Origen, Cyprian, the council of Carthage, 

and Lord Chancellor King, .... 92 
Peter De Bruis and his followers rejected infant bap- 
tism on different grounds from the Baptists, . . 94 
Dialogue between neighbor and convert, ... 99 
Summary of this pai't of the argument, . . . 101 

Conclusion of it, . 103 

Observations in reply to "who are the proper subjects 

of baptism?" 105 

Case of the Samaritans who heard Philip, . . . 106 

Case of Simon Magus, 107 

This case very perplexing to Calvinist Baptists, . . 109 
Case of Saul of T2Lrsus, Acts xxii, .... Ill 
Case of Cornelius, and those in his house, . . . 112 
Dr. T's rebaptizing the members of the old Baptist 

church, 115 

Mode of Baptism, 116 

Mr. B's "positive institutions," and reply to it, 117, 118 
Mr. B., King James, and the translators, . , .119 

John the Dipper, 120 

John the Baptist, St. Peter, St. Paul, and Dr. Clarke, 

placed against Dr. Carson, .... 123 

Mr. B. and his Pedobaptist witnesses, .... 125 

Dr. Clarke, 126 

Mr. Wesley, .127 

Professor Stuart, , 131 

Peter Edwards's view, 134 

History of the ordinances found in the New Testa- 
ment, 135 

Remarks on 1 Cor. x, 2 136 

Greek Particles, 139 

John at Enon, 142 

Robert Hall, and the objection drawn from the number 

baptized by John, 145 

The gentleman in Culpepper, who baptized 75, de- 
cently, in twenty-five minutes, .... 146 



320 

pagp 
Baptism of the Spirit, by ''pouring,'' ''shedding forth," 

and "falling upon," 150 

M. B. and the "sound," . . . . . .152 

"Streams, baths, tanks, pools, hogsheads," &c. &c. . 156 

Case of Lydia and her family, 159 

Case of the Jailor, .Acts xvi, 23 to 40, . . .161 
Case of the Eunuch, Acts viii, 26, ... . 169 
Mr. Wolfe found a sect in Mesopotamia, who baptized 
children at 30 days old, by sprinkling at the edge of 

the river, 173 

Baptists' supposed immersion of Christ, . . . 174 
Fanciful interpretation of Rom. vi, 4 — and Coloss. ii, 12, 178 
Two questions asked in view of this interpretation, 182 
Mr. B. says, "Baptism does not necessarily include the 

idea of water, 183 

Argument from antiquity, 184 

American Mennonites, &c 186 

The validity of the ordinance as administered by those 

who have never been immersed, .... 187 

Roger Williams, Mr. Holliman, &c 189 

Summary, 191 

Conclusion, 197 

Further Appeal, in reply to Mr. B's 21 letters, . .199 
Mr. B's three reasons for not meeting me in oral dis- 
cussion, 202 

Mr. B. and xix chap, of Acts, 204 

Mr. B's effort to prove "there never was a visible 

church of Christ," 206 

Elder G. and all his churches, . . . . . 207 

The unity of the church, 208 

The Abrahamic dispensation and circumcision, . 213 

Baptists and close communion, 214 

Mr. B. and female communion, . . . .216 

Proselyte Baptism, 218 

Philadelphia Baptist confession, . . . .221 
Charge of disagreement with Mr. Wesley, . . . 224 

"No creed but the Bible," 228 

Mr. B. and Acts xv, 9, 229 

Mr. B. and his doubts, 231 

Mr. B. and "Paidia" and "Brepha," . • . .232 

Absurdity of M. B's logic, 235 

Mr. B. and Dr. Hill; ''Origen credibility," &c. . . 237 
Mr. B. and Mr. Judson's difference, .... 238 



321 



Mr. B. and Mr. Wesley's ordination, . 
Mr. B's charge of ''neglect" of my District, 
Mr. B. 2ind ''New Divinity,'' ', 

Mr. B's six Reasons, 

Infant Baptism and Popery, 

Household Baptism, 

Lydia's household; Journeymen Dyers, &c. &c. 

Mr. B. and the Editor of Calmet's Dictionary, 

"Oikos'' and "Oikia/' .... 

Proofs from Old Testament, .... 

Proofs from the New Testament, . 

Mr. B's notice of the mode of baptism, . 

Mr. B's "explicit directions," . . • . 

*' King James," Bishops," and "Translators," . 

"Indian," "Bible," and "Pedobaptist Missionary 

Luther and John the Dipper, . 

Westminster Assembly, .... 

Dr. Clarke and "Bapiizo," .... 

Apology!!! for Mr. Wesley, .... 

Mr. B. and his misrepresentation of Professor Stuart, 

Mr. B. and his misrepresentation of Dr. Doddridge, 

Mr. Wesley and baptismal regeneration, 

Baptism of the Israelites in the Red Sea, . 

Greek Prepositions, 

Mr. B's "small business," 

Saul of Tarsus and family of Cornelius, 

Mr. G. of Culpepper, .... 

The argument from "pouring out of spirit,'' 

The 120, on the day of Pentecost, . 

Baptism, "representation of the death and burial 

Christ," 

3000, on the day of Pentecost, .... 

Case of the Jailor, 

"SifHng" and "Shifting," .... 

Roger Williams baptized by a layman, 
Remarks on Mr. B's charge "of callini 

child of superstition," . 
Mr. B's "union" of all denominations, 
Mr. B's conflicting statements, . 
Concluding Remarks, . 



&c. 



immersion the 



of 



page 
240 
242 
243 

246 
247 

248 

249 

254 

256 

259 

262 

265 

267 

273 

275 

277 

278 

280 

283 

285. 

287 

288 

291 

292 

293 

294 

295 

299 

300 

302 
304 
805 
307 
308 

309 
311 
314 
315 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservatioiiTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 

(724)779-2111 



